Drug Wars - Reconsider Dare

The

RECONSIDER

Quarterly

WINTER 2001—2002 VOLUME 1, NUMBER 4

The

EDUCATION Issue

Michael Roona — This advisor to the new D.A.R.E. program developers asks, “Are we doing enough?”

Edward Shepard — His groundbreaking study reveals the high cost — and hidden costs — of D.A.R.E.

Rocky Anderson — As mayor of Salt Lake City, Anderson refused to fund D.A.R.E.

Rodney Skager — This drug education expert shares his ideas on how to reinvent drug education for teens.

Craig Reinarman — His sociology class on drugs takes students far beyond the “Just Say No” message.

Marsha Rosenbaum — This medical sociologist discovered first-hand that drug education was amiss. Then she did something about it. And much more...

P R E S ER V E

L I B E R T Y

&

R E D U C E

H A R M

The

RECONSIDERQuarterly.....

Table of Contents Features:

2 Are We Doing Enough? By Michael R. Roona and Alexandra Eyle

4 A Guide to Shopping for Drug Education Programs By Alexandra Eyle

6 We Wasted Billions on D.A.R.E. By Edward Shepard, Ph.D.

12 What It Was Like to Drop the D.A.R.E. Program An Interview with Salt Lake City Mayor Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson

is actually only published intermittently by ReconsiDer: Forum on Drug Policy as time and money allow. We continue to call it a quarterly, however, because, according to our executive director, it sounds good and, after all, one can cut or fold it into quarters! Its purpose is to provide members and nonmembers with information about the Drug War in order to promote discussion of drug policy issues among its readers and their friends and colleagues. It also serves to communicate to local political leaders that there is a growing, active, informed and determined constituency that wants fundamental changes in drug policies.

14 On Reinventing Drug Education for Adolescents By Rodney Skager, Ph.D.

22 Notes on Drug Education for College Students By Craig Reinarman, Ph.D.

26 A Focus on Safety First Strikes a Universal Chord By Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D.

29 Article Endnotes Departments:

1 Editor’s Letter: Where Do We Go From Here? 19 Recommended Reading: After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century Reviewed By Kevin B. Zeese

20 Guest Speaker: Ignorance Hurts Both Drug Users and Their Families By Susan P. Koningen

Statement of Purpose ReconsiDer: Forum on Drug Policy is a nonpartisan, grass roots membership organization that works by consensus and through the volunteer efforts and contributions of its members. It is a New York State not-for-profit corporation, with its headquarters in Syracuse. It is supported by individual contributions and grants. Its unifying belief that the War on Drugs has failed grounds its fundamental purposes: to effect substantial change in United States drug policy; to promote, support, and engage in open discussion of alternatives to the War on Drugs; to form numerous chapters that challenge citizens and local political leaders to rethink drug policies; and to help enact pragmatic legislation that reduces harm and preserves liberties.

Publishers: Alexandra & Nicolas Eyle Editor: Alexandra Eyle Design /Layout: Arthur W. Lange Copyediting: Hugh and Kate Mason Proofreading: Hugh and Kate Mason All photographs in this issue are reprinted by permission of the subjects. Send Letters to: Editor The ReconsiDer Quarterly, 205 Onondaga Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13207 email: [email protected]

RECONSIDER: FORUM ON DRUG POLICY

Board of Directors: Capt. Peter Christ (Ret.); Bruce Coville; Alexandra Eyle; Nicolas Eyle; Anthony Malavenda; James Schofield, Esq.; Michael Smithson. Executive Director: Nicolas Eyle Treasurer: James Wright Board of Advisors: Dr. Jennifer Daniels, MD, MBA; William Kinne, Onondaga County Legislature; Minch Lewis, City Auditor, Syracuse, NY; J.F.X. Mannion, CEO, Unity Life Insurance (Ret.); Patrick Murphy, Chief of Police, Syracuse, NY (Ret.);Van Robinson, Councilor-at-Large, City of Syracuse; Carol Shepperd, Housing Authority, Syracuse, NY; Dr. Gene Tinelli, MD, PhD; Patricia Waelder, President, Syracuse School Board (Ret.) Web Site: www.reconsider.org Toll-Free Number: 1-800-992-3299

Editor’s Letter:

Drug Education —

Where Do We Go from Here? When Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) was first launched in 1983, parents welcomed it, believing it would help keep their children safe. But some found that D.A.R.E. wasn’t working the way they’d hoped it would. “In 1994, D.A.R.E. invaded the serenity of our home,” Steve Finichel, a doctor from New Jersey, told us last fall. “My 10-yearold son began to cry uncontrollably at dinner, informing his mother and me that the wine we were about to drink takes 14 minutes from our lives. He also informed us that we were alcoholics. To make matters worse, he put a tip into the classroom D.A.R.E. box and was frightened that soon we would be taken off to jail. . .” To make matters worse, studies found that the program wasn’t working. In 2001, the U.S. Surgeon General placed it under the category of “Ineffective Programs.” D.A.R.E. America first defended the program, then worked with the Institute of Health and Social Policy, at the University of Akron, to revise it, using a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. About 37,000 7th-graders are now taking part in the program, known as the Adolescent Substance Abuse Prevention Study, which was launched in September 2001 in 87 school districts in six selected cities — New Orleans, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, St. Louis, and Detroit. All of the districts were randomly assigned the new program, with half getting the new program and half serving as the control group and continuing their old drug abuse prevention activities. To determine the program’s success, all 37,000 students will be surveyed from

September 2001 through June 2006. The survey will include an assessment of how well the program was implemented, students’ receptivity to the program, interviews with dropouts, and analyses of school and community data in order to understand the contextual impact on the program’s delivery and outcome. Is D.A.R.E. America to be applauded for revising its program? Or should it be condemned, as Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson put it, for foisting this fraud on the American public in the first place, and trying to salvage its reputation by using our children as guinea pigs? How did we end up in this situation? And where should we go from here? Experts in the field helped us answer these questions. Michael R. Roona, executive director of Social Capital Development Corporation, served as an advisor to the developers of the new D.A.R.E. curriculum. He takes us from D.A.R.E.’s beginnings up to the present, and shares his concerns about the new program. Edward Shepard, Ph.D., associate professor and chair of the LeMoyne College Department of Economics, undertook a ground breaking study to find out how much D.A.R.E. has cost us. In the process, he discovered that D.A.R.E. costs more than we knew. Rodney Skager, Ph.D., professor emeritus of the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, draws on his talks with teens to tell us what educational approaches might be best to follow. Craig Reinarman, Ph.D., professor and chair of sociology at the University of

California, tells us how he helps his sociology students decode drug education messages — and what it takes to gain students’ trust. Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson, mayor of Salt Lake City, talks about how citizens of Salt Lake City reacted when he stopped funding D.A.R.E. — and offers advice to other mayors. Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D., a medical sociologist and the director of the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, tells how she came to write her ground breaking booklet, Safety First. Susan Koningen, a single mother from Australia, shares her story of how she has coped with drug abuse in her own family — and is helping others to do the same. We also offer a brief Guide to Shopping for Drug Education Programs. Shifting our focus from drug education to the broader issue of drug policy, we invited Kevin Zeese, president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, to review After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century, edited by Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute. This special issue of the Quarterly is far from the final word on drug education. But if it motivates teachers, parents and community leaders to rethink our approach to find new and productive ways to cut drug use and the harms it inflicts, then we’ve achieved our goal. Only by examining this issue openly can we uncover better ways to talk to kids about drugs.

Alexandra Eyle, editor THE

R

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

1

Poor Results Prompt D.A.R.E. to Create New Curriculum; One Drug Education Expert Wonders…

Are We Doing Enough? By Michael R. Roona and Alexandra Eyle

W

hen most people think of

D.A.R.E., they think of the ubiquitous

17-week drug education program taught to fifth- or sixth-graders in 80% of the school districts across the United States. But D.A.R.E. is more than this one program. D.A.R.E. is both a sequence of drug education curricula designed to be implemented in elementary, middle, and high schools and a complex set of institutional relationships that collectively constitute the most comprehensive infrastructure for the implementation of prevention programming across the United States and the world. D.A.R.E. had rather humble beginnings.

It was established in Los Angeles in 1983 by a curriculum developer named Ruth Rich who was working with the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles Police Department. About half of Rich’s Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) curriculum used materials and artwork developed by Dr. William Hansen, who had created them for his Project S.M.A.R.T. drug education program. When the first preliminary evaluation of D.A.R.E. showed that the program had the potential to prevent substance use by kids, the D.A.R.E. system began to grow prolifically. Nancy Reagan, wife of then President Ronald Reagan, had launched her “Just Say No” campaign, providing a context for D.A.R.E.’s rapid growth. The “Just Say No” mantra, while hopelessly naïve, was consistent with the zealous, zero-tolerance attitude of Darryl Gates, Chief of the

2

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

Editor’s Note: Michael R. Roona, executive director of the Social Capital Development Corporation, serves on several national and local substance abuse advisory boards, including the one advising the program developers who redesigned — and will evaluate the effectiveness of — the new D.A.R.E. curriculum. He also is directing an evaluation of a family-strengthening and student assistance counseling program for children whose parents are in methadone maintenance and other drug treatment programs (for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention); helping substance abuse and mental health treatment providers improve treatment for clients who are simultaneously dealing with mental health and substance abuse problems (for the Center for Mental Health Services); and conducting a meta-analysis of school-based drug education program evaluations (for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). He has written the sections on childhood and adolescent substance abuse for the first edition of The Encyclopedia of Prevention and Health Promotion, available this June. He is an active ReconsiDer member. Michael Roona may be reached at 518433-1755 or at [email protected]. D.A.R.E. Then and Now: The original D.A.R.E. program only emphasizes dangers of drug use through lectures. The revised program will try to explore the dangers through interactive teaching methods, and will, D.A.R.E. says, also help students to: • Examine and understand their own beliefs related to alcohol, tobacco, inhalant and other drug use and consequences • Communicate positively in social and interpersonal situations • Develop and use assertiveness/refusal skills • Recognize, defuse, and avoid potentially violent situations • Make positive quality-of-life decisions. Los Angeles Police Department, which together with the Los Angeles Unified School District, spawned D.A.R.E. A frightening glimpse into Gates’ mind, and the setting in which D.A.R.E. grew and prospered, can be found in Gates’ 1990 testimony before the U.S. Senate that the “casual user ought to be taken out and shot, because he or she has no reason for using drugs.” When asked about this outrageous testimony, Gates stressed that he was not “being facetious” and asserted that marijuana users were guilty of treason.1 So it was in the context of Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” crusade and

Darryl Gates’ extremist fantasies that the D.A.R.E. program emerged and grew. But D.A.R.E.’s ideological foundations are less relevant today, partly because this emphasis on abstinence has been reinforced by the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, which denies financial assistance to schools for any federal program unless those schools teach that the use of illicit drugs and the unlawful possession and use of alcohol is wrong and harmful. In addition, D.A.R.E. has become a multimillion-dollar industry with corporate officers earning six-figure salaries; D.A.R.E. now may be more interested in preserving its lucrative empire

than advancing an ideological position. D.A.R.E. America, the national parent organization headquartered in Los Angeles, had assets of $3,574,848 and income of $11,593,663 in 1998, the last year for which data are publicly available. Revenue sources included contributions ($4,135,476), government grants ($2,188,187), special events

stitutional relationships, not a single organization. Independent tax-exempt, nonprofit D.A.R.E. organizations are incorporated in many states, and these organizations have budgets ranging up to $5,000,000. According to a recent (unpublished) study conducted by Jeff Merrill and his colleagues at the Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine, the average amount of funding for D.A.R.E. at the state level is $528,000 and this funding comes from a wide variety of sources. In 12 states the primary source of funding is legislated (for example, the use of asset forfeiture proceeds to fund D.A.R.E. programs). In 12 other states, the primary source of funding is federal or state grants (including the Byrne formula grants provided to states by the feds until President Bush eliminated the Byrne program shortly after taking office). In only seven states is the primary source of funding for D.A.R.E. the U.S. Education

Nonetheless the Principles of Effectiveness did indirectly affect D.A.R.E.; they gave new force to the findings of numerous prior evaluations of D.A.R.E.’s flagship 17-week program, which have shown it to be ineffective at reducing substance use. Furthermore, these evaluations demonstrated that it didn’t matter where the program was implemented. Evaluations conducted in Illinois,2 Kentucky,3 North Carolina,4 South Carolina,5 British Columbia,6 and elsewhere consistently demonstrated no effect on self-reported substance use by youth.7 But it is important to note that no moderate or highquality evaluations of the D.A.R.E. program for higher grade levels or of the cumulative effects of D.A.R.E. on youths who receive D.A.R.E. in elementary, middle, and high school have been conducted. D.A.R.E. America, for its part, has always contended that it is naïve to expect that a one-shot program in fifth or sixth grade would be effective and, from the start it proposed a multiyear program, beginning in elementary school and running through high school.

D.A.R.E. Now Will Reach

Older Students, Too

While ubiquitous ($2,360,590), annual at the fifth- and license royalties sixth-grade level ($2,682,975), and (and quite cominvestments mon at lower ($226,435). The govgrades), D.A.R.E. ernment grants for has generally the most part are not been unable to competitive grants. Darryl Gates, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department penetrate junior Rather, they are speand senior high cial appropriations schools. This lack of funds (earmarked for drug education programs taught by uniformed police Department’s Safe and Drug Free of penetration at the junior and senior officers) that are not part of the nor- Schools program and only one of those high school levels will soon change, mal budget debate. These ear marks, states has a D.A.R.E. operation with a however. or hard marks (more commonly known budget in excess of $1,000,000. Hence, Today, drug education developers and as pork), are inserted into program or even if the Principles of Effectiveness researchers agree that multi-year proagency budgets by legislators who like for drug education programs, promulgrams are the way to go and that multiD.A.R.E. gated in 1999 by the Safe and Drug Free year programs should focus on the Schools program to prohibit federal needs of middle-school students. Some The balance sheet and income statefunding of ineffective drug education contend that one reason for the failure ment of the parent organization, howprograms, directly affect D.A.R.E., the of D.A.R.E.’s flagship program is that it ever, do not capture D.A.R.E.’s full scope, impact will be dramatic in only a few because D.A.R.E. is a complex set of instates.

...the “casual user ought to be taken out and shot, because he or she has no reason for using drugs.”

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

3

targeted kids who were too young. Most prevention researchers who adhere to an “inoculation” model of substance abuse prevention believe that kids must be inoculated closer to the age when they enter the youth drug subculture, which generally occurs in middle school.

Revamping D.A.R.E. It is with this perspective in mind that the Institute for Health and Social Policy at the University of Akron set about designing a new state-of-the-art drug education program, funded by a $13.7 million grant from The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The result of this initiative is a ten-lesson, seventh-grade curriculum that was implemented by D.A.R.E in the fall of 2001 in 176 middle schools in New Orleans, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, St. Louis, and Detroit. In addition, a new ninth-grade curriculum, currently under development, will be implemented in the 80 high schools those 176 middle schools feed into two years hence, when this year’s seventh-graders are in ninth grade. Youth who participate in the seventh- and ninthgrade curricula will be followed through eleventh grade, at which time self-reports of substance use will be collected to determine whether students who went through the junior/ senior high school program have lower rates of substance use than comparison students who haven’t gone through the program. The curriculum developer at the University of Akron responsible for the new seventh- and ninth-grade D.A.R.E. curricula, Dr. Richard Hawthorne, also is developing a new fifth-grade D.A.R.E. curriculum to replace the one currently in use in 80% of the school districts across the United States, in an effort to see if this investment can be salvaged and made more effective. Whether these new curricula, alone or in sequence, will have an impact on the substance use or abuse behaviors of eleventh-graders remains to be seen. The curricula that have been developed

4

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

are based on active learning and supportive teaching strategies, which are regarded by curriculum and instruction scholars as effective pedagogical practices. In the context of drug education programs, these strategies also are recognized as beneficial. In the narrower domain of abstinence-based programs that have the goal of eliminating use of drugs, the evidence of what works to promote abstinence from illegal drug and alcohol use is largely based on short-term evaluations; there is no long-term evidence that active learning and supportive teaching strategies offer the best approach to promoting abstinence, or that promoting abstinence is itself an effective substance abuse prevention strategy. The Education Department’s Principles of Effectiveness and the numerous studies that have shown D.A.R.E. to be ineffective have had a larger effect than the mere revamping and expansion of the D.A.R.E. program. They also have opened the way for other, alternative programs to penetrate the drug education marketplace. The Life Skills Training program is one well-known

commercially available alternative to D.A.R.E. While analyses of the Life Skills

Training program and other alternative programs have shown some to be effective in the short term, most have not been evaluated in the long term. It remains to be seen if the students (who for the most part were not substance users when they participated in these programs) will report markedly lower levels of substance use or abuse when they mature into the youth drug subculture, or whether the strategies used to “educate” them will backfire.

What Problems Lie Ahead? As one of the advisors to the University of Akron group that developed and evaluated the “state-of-the-art” curricula implemented this fall by D.A.R.E., I am curious to see what the evaluation will yield. We may find, for instance, that the same intervention components that delay the onset of use at a younger age increase the likelihood of abuse when the students mature. For example, teaching seventh-graders that fewer of their peers use a particular substance than they previously

A Guide to Shopping for Drug Education Programs

A Basic Rule of Thumb: By Alexandra Eyle One of the biggest problems that school boards and their communities face when cutting D.A.R.E. from schools is deciding what should take its place. Unfortunately, there’s no easy solution to that problem. This is not due to any lack of alternatives — there are hundreds out there. So many, in fact, that to make a good selection, school board or community members must first arm themselves with these basic understandings:

• While many programs have been evaluated for their effectiveness in preventing use of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana, none has demonstrated its effectiveness in preventing cocaine, heroin, or speed use. Despite this fact, programs are regularly labeled as “effective substance abuse prevention programs.” • Government endorsement of a program does not mean it prevents all drug use. For instance, the popular Life Skills Training program has been shown to be effective in reducing ciga-

thought might reduce use in the short term by eliminating pressure to conform with unrealistic expectations about substance use by their peers. But reinforcing the natural tendency of adolescents to conform to the social norms of their peers may have the reverse effect in eleventh grade, when most kids are using or have used those substances; if the norm in eleventh grade is to use drugs (whereas in seventh grade the norm was to not use them) the students may now decide to conform by using. Thus, it is conceivable that teaching kids to conform with social norms in the seventh grade reduces the likelihood that a seventh grader will drink alcohol, but that once kids are taught to conform to social norms, when they get older they not only will drink alcohol, but will drink to get drunk if that is the normative behavior in eleventh grade. It is likely that abstinence promotion intervention components work well for some kids who are predisposed to not use substances (by reinforcing their negative attitudes toward drugs). These same interventions, however, may be

counterproductive with youths who use substances because those youths may be involved in a “deviant” subculture that not only rejects abstinence, but also rejects moderation. Moderation, like tolerance, is a fundamental virtue that, unfortunately, due to federal restrictions, cannot be taught in American schools dependent upon federal funding.

Still Not Reaching Those Who Truly Need Us Finally, what the new curricula won’t do is address the very real needs of the small percentage of kids who get drunk or high because they are trying to relieve psychological and emotional pain caused by serious problems. Evidence culled from the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation indicates that less than 3 percent of 12- to 14-year-olds and a mere 12 percent of 15-to 17-year-olds consume over 80 percent of the alcohol imbibed by youths in their age groups. Many of these kids have been sexually molested, physically abused, or otherwise victimized and their use of alcohol and other

drugs is a symptom or consequence of their dysfunctional home life rather than a cause of their problems. These children need to be protected from abuse and counseled to help them positively cope with the experiences — rather than seeking solace in a high that momentarily liberates them from their pain. The drug experiences of these students are very different from those of healthy kids who get high because they want to try a new experience or because they’ve gotten high before and found they like it. Spending money (and valuable class time in this era of high-stakes academic testing) trying to reduce the prevalence of substance use among the majority of youth who are unlikely ever to develop a substance abuse problem at the expense of the small percentage of youth with real problems that may even be aggravated by their substance use behaviors would be misguided. Alternatives to universal classroom-based drug education programs, like student assistance programs that provide counseling to troubled youth, may be a wiser investment of limited public resources. (Endnotes — page 29)

R

“Buyer Beware” rette use, has had mixed results with alcohol use, and has not been evaluated in preventing use of harder drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, or speed. • Opinions of “expert panels” should be closely scrutinized. For instance, the panel created by the Department of Education to evaluate 132 prevention programs did not focus on the effect of programs on substance use behaviors. Rather, the Education Department’s panel determined which programs were exemplary by assessing whether program content and processes had

clearly stated rationales and whether they were implemented effectively. While such factors may contribute to program effectiveness, using such inputs rather than outputs — such as statistically significant drops in drug use among the program participants — to define program effectiveness is problematic. “One problem with ‘expert panel’ reviews,” says a program analyst, who wished to remain anonymous, “is that they often consist of an old boy network more interested in maintaining funding for prevention programs

than in critically reviewing the research.” In the Department of Education’s case, the panel identified 33 “promising” programs and nine “exemplary” programs for the Department of Education. The nine exemplary programs cited are: Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids ( ATLAS ), CASASTART, Life Skills Training, OSLC Treatment Foster Care, Project ALERT, Project Northland- Alcohol Prevention (Continued on page 11) THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

5

$

A new study finds...

We Wasted Billions on D.A.R.E. By Edward Shepard, Ph.D.

S

ince D.A.R.E. first opened in Los Angeles schools in 1983, it has grown into a national curriculum. According to D.A.R.E. America and the U.S. Department of Justice, almost 50,000 police officers have been trained for the program since its inception, and are teaching classes in over 10,000 communities and in over 300,000 classrooms in all 50 states. By the late 1990s, the program reached an estimated 80 percent of school districts nationwide.2 The extensive use of D.A.R.E. in the nation’s schools points to the need for an economic evaluation of the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of the program. Are law enforcement and educational resources being utilized efficiently by the program? Does it generate benefits for the community and society at large? Are alternative programs more effective or less costly in achieving the goals of reducing illicit drug use or abuse? In recent years there have been scientific evaluations of the program that found that D.A.R.E. has not succeeded in reducing illicit drug use among young people.3 (See Are We Doing Enough, page 2 of this issue.) Since this is its major goal and purpose, this suggests that there may be no direct benefits at all for communities from participation in the program. There is even less information about the costs of D.A.R.E., and no formal scientific studies of D.A.R.E. costs are currently available. Since D.A.R.E. is funded primarily through tax dollars, it is essential that reliable information about both costs and benefits be obtained to evaluate the overall efficacy of the program. This article does not address the broader concerns of the effectiveness

6

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

1

Editor’s Note: Edward Shepard is an associate professor and chair of the LeMoyne College Department of Economics. He is also a ReconsiDer member who has been interested in economic evaluations of drug policy issues for several years. Dr. Shepard has over two decades’ experience in conducting economic studies and received his doctoral degree in Economics from Boston College. Areas of specialization are microeconomics, labor economics, cost-benefit research, and applied productivity studies. He has authored or coauthored papers that have appeared in Industrial Relations, Working USA, the International Journal of Manpower, the Journal of Housing Economics, and Public Finance Quarterly. Dr. Shepard has presented research findings at several national conferences, including the 1999 and 2001 Drug Policy Foundation conferences. Prior work on drug testing and productivity received attention in the national press in articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Dallas Morning News. He also provided input into the ACLU report on drug testing in the workplace and was interviewed about the economics of drug testing on National Public Radio. Dr. Shepard is married, with three children in the public school systems in Central New York. He may be reached at [email protected].

of D.A.R.E., but focuses instead on estimating the program’s economic costs. Over the past decade there have been a number of studies that address effectiveness issues but, as mentioned earlier, no formal scientific study of economic costs. Yet information on economic costs should be an important part of a comprehensive evaluation of the D.A.R.E. program. Economists hold that the economic merits of a program can be evaluated by applying cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. In a cost-benefit analysis, the economic costs and benefits of a particular program are quantified to determine whether net benefits are generated and whether society is better off with a program than without it. In a cost-effective analysis, two or more alternative programs are evaluated to determine which is most efficient — that is, which program achieves the program goals at lowest cost. To do either analysis, reliable information on economic costs is needed. There is, however, no centralized accounting of the funds used in D.A.R.E. programs, and thus there is

significant uncertainty, and a wide range of conflicting estimates, about the costs or resources that are used to support the program. This provided the central motivation for the research that is summarized in my report — LeMoyne College Institute of Industrial Relations Research Paper Number 22, November 2001, The Economic Costs of D.A.R.E. My goal in conducting this study was to provide reasonable estimates of the economic costs of the program. In this exclusive article for The ReconsiDer Quarterly, I am reporting the estimates arrived at by this study, and reviewing the research method and overall findings. I hope that this information will prove valuable to other researchers, who might wish to evaluate D.A.R.E.’s cost-benefit or costeffectiveness issues. (The complete study is available at www.reconsider. org, or by contacting shepard@mail. lemoyne.edu.) The study found that the estimated annual economic costs of D.A.R.E., nationwide, are between $1 billion and

$1.3 billion, or close to $200 per student each year. This is significantly higher than numbers that are commonly reported in the press.4 These costs should be taken into account by local communities, school districts, and participating law enforcement organizations when deciding whether to adopt or continue a local D.A.R.E. program.

D.A.R.E. America reports that each year

approximately 3,000 police officers are trained to administer the program. Their four regional training centers are funded by an annual $1.7 million U.S. Department of Justice grant. In addi-

Overview of the D.A.R.E. Program A fact sheet prepared by D.A.R.E. for the U.S. Department of Justice reported that the program expected to reach about 8.5 million elementary school children in the year 1999. Twenty-five million additional children were expected to benefit from a range of D.A.R.E. activities, including visits to other grades, afterschool activities, and parent programs. D.A.R.E. America currently reports that within the United States more than 26 million children will benefit from the programs, with approximately one quarter (or 6.5 million) participating in the core elementary school program.5

Exaggerated Estimates These estimates appear to be exaggerated, however. Information about the school-age population provided by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Census suggests that 4 million is probably a more reasonable estimate of the number of children in the core program within the United States.6 D.A.R.E. America is a nonprofit tax-exempt organization that controls the training and curriculum for law enforcement officers to provide education in the schools about illicit drugs. It also markets and provides support and technical assistance for the program, licenses merchandise vendors, and conducts assessment and research.

training provided through three- to four-day training courses. D.A.R.E. officers also visit grades K–4 to introduce the program to young children and warn them about strangers and illegal drugs, and participate in other events, including after-school programs, parent programs, fund-raising dinners and dances, events with recreation or entertainment, presentations, and picnics.

Multiple Funding Source

tion, 46 states have their own training centers that have received funding from different sources.7 The 17-week course for elementary (5th or 6th grade) school students uses trained law enforcement officers to teach D.A.R.E. lessons in the classroom. Middle and high school courses have been introduced in many communities to reinforce the core messages first taught in the 5th or 6th grades. To teach in the core program, an officer must attend a two-week training program at a state or regional training center. To participate in the middle school (10-week) or high school (9-week) program, officers must have additional

Funding for local programs comes from many sources, including the federal government, state and local governments, individual school districts, local and state police departments, corporate donations, asset seizures, and various fund-raising events.8 According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), $41 million in federal support was provided to the program in a recent year.9 In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice has provided law enforcement assistance grants.10 These can be used to provide resources needed by local law enforcement agencies to support the D.A.R.E. program. Officials in the U.S. Department of Education, who administer over $500 million of Safe Schools federal grant money to state education and governors’ offices, do not know and do not keep records of how much goes to support the D.A.R.E. program.11 A 1992 survey of local D.A.R.E. administrators indicated that almost 50 percent of them obtained some funding from the Department of Education.12 However, state and local government officials may now be reluctant to use Safe Schools grants to support D.A.R.E., partly because it is not among the programs demonstrated to be effective, based on the Department’s “Principles of Effectiveness.”13 THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

7

R

Local D.A.R.E. administrators sometimes rely on corporate donations and fund raising events to help cover costs or to pay for promotional merchandise, such as the D.A.R.E. automobile, and the bumper stickers, T-shirts, caps, jackets, and bags available from licensed vendors. Some police departments consider D.A.R.E. to be an important part of community policing or community relations, and this leads them to contribute officer services for the program. A 1997 report by the Research Triangle Institute, which surveyed local districts during the early to mid 1990s, found that “for most districts in the study . . . D.A.R.E. programs were supported wholly or in part by the local or state enforcement agencies.”14

America estimates the annual costs of the officer services to be about $215 million.17 There is uncertainty about the real costs because there is no centralized accounting of the funds, expenditures, and resources used to support the program. The decision to use D.A.R.E. is made by local school districts, and the needed resources are provided for by local city or town budgets, local school districts, or local police departments. These offices, in turn,

There have been a series of negative evaluations of the program, and recently, Oakland, California; Seattle, Washington; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Rochester, New York, have dropped it. 15 However, D.A.R.E. remains extremely popular, and any shortfall in state or federal funding is made up from other sources, including local police departments, local school districts, and city, town, and county budgets. In some communities, officers have used their own vehicles to provide transportation for the program; in other communities, seized vehicles have been reconditioned to become officers’ D.A.R.E. cars. Once adopted, the program — because of its popularity with parents, students, and local law enforcement agencies — is often difficult to drop.

Research on the economic costs should be an important part of a comprehensive evaluation of the program. Measurement of the economic costs of a program requires an evaluation of the value of resources that are devoted to it instead of the “next best” alternative uses (the opportunity cost principle). Thus, actual expenditures and accounting costs of a program normally comprise a part but not all of the economic costs. For the purpose of estimating economic costs, it does not matter whether compensation is provided for a resource or whether there were donated services or contributions. In economics there is never a free lunch, and resources being used for one purpose cannot then be used for another. For example, when a local police department offers the services of an officer to D.A.R.E., or when a local school provides class time for D.A.R.E. programs, that officer cannot be out on patrol, and that classroom cannot be used for art, music, or other educational purposes.

• D.A.R.E. uses trained law enforcement officers to teach the program in the schools, and so the costs of officer services are part of the economic costs. The costs of officer services include the wages and salaries and benefits (such as insurance, retirement, vacations, health coverage, etc.) as well as the costs of equipment, transportation, administration, and supervision. • There are costs of training the officers in the four regional and 46 state training centers, which include the costs of the trainers, materials and equipment, rental of training areas, and the salaries and hotel and living expenses of the officers during the training program.

Estimated annual costs range

between $1 billion and $1.3 billion and are significantly greater than what is reported in the press...

At What Cost? Prior estimates of the costs of D.A.R.E., provided by investigative journalists for the popular press, have varied widely, ranging from about $200 million to close to $1 billion annually.16 D.A.R.E.

8

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

have access to state or federal support through a variety of programs.

The economic costs of D.A.R.E. can be grouped into five general categories:

• General and administrative costs associated with program development, refinement, coordination, research and assessment, and supervision must also be counted. The program is controlled by D.A.R.E. America, which markets the program, licenses the D.A.R.E. vendors, modifies or refines the curriculum over time, coordinates the training of officers, conducts research and assessments, and provides technical assistance and instructional materials to communities. The resources used by D.A.R.E. America in performing these functions are part of the economic costs. The administration and coordination of the program also involves state agencies, and most states have one or more coordinators as well as a D.A.R.E. training center. These costs must also be included. • There are costs of materials and supplies — D.A.R.E. workbooks and items such as T-shirts, caps, pencils, bumper stickers, and other items that may be provided to students in the program. • Finally, there are costs of the educational resources the program uses. Lessons are taught in schools with the

classroom teacher normally present, taking valuable time away from teaching academic topics. Determining the average cost of a school year provides a way to estimate this cost. To estimate all the economic costs, it is necessary to have reliable estimates of the number of participating officers and school children nationwide, the number of school classroom hours devoted to D.A.R.E. activities, and the costs per student of materials, supplies, and merchandise provided. Since there is no formal or centralized accounting of D.A.R.E. activities, in conducting our study we estimated costs using information from a number of sources, including the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, state D.A.R.E. offices (New York and Maryland), and D.A.R.E. America. A complete description of the basis for the estimates used here is contained in the LeMoyne College report.18 As shown in the report, the total number of children enrolled in the elementary program is estimated to be close to 4 million. An estimated 3.3 to 3.9 million classroom hours and 72 million student hours are devoted to the core program. One to two million additional children are estimated to be in the middle or high school programs. The number of full-time equivalent D.A.R.E. officers nationwide is estimated to be between 7,838 and 9,264. This information was used to estimate the annual economic costs of D.A.R.E. nationwide.

30 percent of total compensation, or $17,143. Estimated total compensation is therefore $57,143.20 General and administrative expenses, including supervisory, overhead, and equipment and transportation costs, are likely to add at least 20 percent to total compensation, or $11,429. Thus, the full cost of a D.A.R.E. officer is $68,572 per year. Multiplying this value by the estimated number of full-time equivalent officers nationwide yields an estimated value of officer services between 537 million and 635 million dollars per year. This number is more than double the value estimated by D.A.R.E. America. When the annual cost of officers is divided by the estimated number of students served in the elementary, middle, and high school programs, the estimated costs range between $90 and $127 per student. This is consistent with reports from communities around the country, but accounts for only about half of the economic costs associated with the D.A.R.E. program. Officer training costs: Officers teaching in the core program must graduate from a two-week training course at

mated 3,000 officers trained during each of the last few years, training costs are estimated to be about $12 million annually.22 Because this is a comparatively minor amount, an error in this estimate will not significantly influence total estimated costs. General and administrative costs: D.A.R.E. America has a staff of about two dozen professionals who are responsible for designing, implementing, overseeing, licensing, and marketing the program. D.A.R.E. America is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization that is supported primarily by corporate donations, contributions, royalties from the sales of D.A.R.E. merchandise, and a small amount of federal funds. The overall operating budget for D.A.R.E. America provides a good basis for estimating its costs. According to D.A.R.E. America, the overall budget is about $9 million.23 During a recent tax year (1998), D.A.R.E. America reported an annual income of about $11.5 million.24 Some of the funds or grants for research and training that are received are awarded to subcontractors or to the regional training centers to support officer training. A number of research and evaluation studies have been funded by states, the U.S. government, or private foundations. Last year, for example, a grant for $13.7 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was awarded to the University of Akron for a five-year study to evaluate and redesign the D.A.R.E. curriculum.25 The costs of research, evaluation, assessment, and redesign of the curriculum should be included as part of the economic costs of the program. A cost of about $3 million per year appears reasonable and is a very small part of the overall cost of the program.

...students and the community received no measurable benefit from participation in the program....

National Estimates of the Economic Costs of D.A.R.E.: A Summary of Findings Cost of officer services: According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the average wages and salaries of fulltime patrol officers nationwide is approaching $40,000 per year.19 Benefits for insurance, retirement, health coverage, and so forth, are usually about

a regional or state training center. The U.S. Department of Justice provides $1.7 million each year to D.A.R.E. America, which uses the funds for training at four regional training centers located throughout the country. In addition, 46 states have established their own training centers. The estimated cost of training a D.A.R.E. officer is about $4,000.21 In many cases the training is paid for, at least in part, by federal or state funds. With an esti-

Most states have offices with state employees or law enforcement officers who serve as D.A.R.E. coordinators.

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

9

These offices typically serve as intermediaries between local school districts or local law enforcement agencies and D.A.R.E. America. Functions include overseeing or coordinating the state training centers and collecting data from local school districts or police departments participating in the program. A report by the Research Triangle Institute in 1992 indicated that states spend close to $300,000, on average, on these activities. With 50 states, this yields an estimated national cost of about $15 million.26 Adding up the costs of D.A.R.E. America, research and evaluation, and coordination of the D.A.R.E. program by states, the economic cost for this part of the D.A.R.E. program is estimated to be about $27 million. This amount is likely to vary from year to year, but it should remain a very small part of the total economic cost.

Information on expenditures came from D.A.R.E. officers and newspaper reports from around the country. In a rural county in New York State, a local D.A.R.E. officer estimated that the county had spent approximately $5–$7 per student enrolled in the core course over the past few years. Other sources indicated that there is variation in spending depending on available funding, with some communities spending more and some less.30 Based on this information, $5–$10 in materials costs per student appears to be a reasonable

ties) for about 180 days a year, they can be expected (barring illness and absenteeism) to spend on average of between 1,080 and 1,260 hours a year involved with school activities. Dividing the estimated annual cost per student ($7,000) by the range of hours spent yearly in the classroom yields an estimate of the cost per student per hour of between $5.56 and $6.48. With a national average class size of 24 students, this means that a classroom hour has implicit costs of between $133 and $156 per hour.32 A D.A.R.E. class that used 18 hours would “cost” between $2,394 and $2,808 in estimated value of educational resources.33 With an estimated 3.3 to 3.9 million hours in the classroom used annually for the program nationally, this means that the estimated economic costs of educational resources for the program are between $438.9 million and $608.4 million.

... this suggests that the program has been costly, ineffective, and possibly

counter-productive...

D.A.R.E. materials and supplies: The

cost includes the workbooks and merchandise typically provided to D.A.R.E. students. The workbooks and course materials are a small part of the cost (less than $1 per student), but other items are more expensive. Pencils, caps, shirts, jackets, bags, bumper stickers are available at prices ranging from pennies to $40 or more. The amount spent per child varies significantly, depending on the community and the funds available to support the program. Only a minimal expense for instructional materials is needed to conduct a D.A.R.E. class, and a few communities, including New York City, provide little else.27 Expenditures on D.A.R.E. merchandise are not reported, and licensed D.A.R.E. vendors consider the information confidential.28 However, during a recent tax year (1998), D.A.R.E. America reportedly earned over $2,500,000 in license royalties.29

10

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

estimate. With an estimated 4 million students in the elementary school program, and 1–2 million additional students in the middle and high school programs, the total cost is estimated to be between $25 and $60 million annually. Value of educational resources used for the program: One cost that is usually not included in newspaper reports is the economic cost of the educational resources used by the program. There is no accounting information for this cost because there are no formal expenditures for classroom time when school is in session. Nevertheless, the cost should be accounted for because classroom time devoted to D.A.R.E. could have been (but is not) allocated for other educational activities. Education costs are now approaching $7,000 per student annually; this amount includes the costs of school buildings and grounds, maintenance and utilities, teaching and administration, equipment and supplies, transportation, and after-school activities.31 Because students are in school, on average, for 6–7 hours a day (including transportation and after-school activi-

Cost Summary The cost estimates of this study are summarized and totaled in the sidebar (see page 11). Estimated annual economic costs range between $1 billion and $1.3 billion per year and are significantly greater than what is commonly reported in the press using information provided by D.A.R.E. The value of officer services and the costs of educational resources used by the program account for the bulk of these costs and therefore deserve greater scrutiny. If the programs are as widespread as claimed by D.A.R.E. America, these estimates could be biased downward. With an estimated five to six million students enrolled in D.A.R.E. courses, the economic costs of the program are estimated to be $173 to $268 per student annually. Scientific research of the program provides information needed to assess its benefits. Many evaluations, however, show a neutral or negative effect of the D.A.R.E. program. (As a result, D.A.R.E. is no longer included on the list of ap-

proved programs, based on the “principles of effectiveness” by the U.S. Department of Education.) The evaluations that have been done suggest that the students and the community are receiving no measurable benefit from participation in the program. From an economic perspective, this suggests that the program should be discontinued because it is costly, ineffective, and possibly counterproductive. However, even if D.A.R.E. generated benefits of the magnitude needed to justify the costs of its program, it is still important to compare its cost-effectiveness with that of other programs. A number of alternative programs have been developed that appear promising based on the findings of preliminary

research. In choosing among alternative programs, the most cost-effective program — that which provides the greatest benefit per dollar cost — should provide the basis for determin-

ing the allocation of resources used for drug education. (Endnotes — pages 29 and back cover.)

R

Preliminary Estimates of the Economic Costs of the D.A.R.E. Program 1. Officer services $537 to $635 million 2. Officer training $12 million 3. General and administrative $27 million 4. Materials and supplies $25 to $60 million 5.Value of educational resources used $439 to $608 million 6. Totals: National estimates of D.A.R.E. costs $1.04 to $1.34 billion 7. Estimated economic cost per student each year $173 to $268

Buyer Beware! (Continued from page 5) Curriculum, Project T.N.T.-Towards No Tobacco Use, Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum, and Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14. In the case of Life Skills Training, the program developer, Gilbert Botvin, also served on the panel of experts. • In selecting programs, schools should also beware of the term, “best practice.” “There are numerous lists of ‘evidence-based practices’ and ‘best practices’ in drug prevention,” says Michael Roona, executive director of Social Capital Development Corporation. The problem is, programs that legitimately land on one list may find their way onto lists where they don’t belong. For instance, the success of Botvin’s Life Skills Training (LST) program in smoking prevention landed it in the National Institute of Drug Abuse’s 1997 guide, Preventing Drug Use Among Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide. But LST also found its way onto the “Blueprints for Violence Prevention” list of recommended programs, even though its ef-

fects on adolescent violence had not been evaluated. This occurred because the Blueprints for Violence Prevention were based broadly on preventing delinquency, which included cigarette smoking, not on preventing violence. So LST came to be known as an “evidence-based” violence prevention program, even though there was no evidence that it prevented violence. Whether or not it reduces violence doesn’t matter. It’s still considered an evidence-based best practice. To date, there has been only one major nongovernmental effort to identify effective top prevention practices – the “Prevention 2000: Moving Effective Programs into Practice” summit, organized by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the largest nongovernmental funder in the substance abuse arena. This summit (and follow-up conference calls and meetings) brought two dozen of the nation’s top prevention researchers together with the heads of all the federal agencies that fund prevention programs — Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Center

for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institute of Mental Health, and the U.S. Department of Education — to decide how to use current drug prevention research to build the best programs. What did they conclude? “That we don’t know enough about what works to even begin talking about moving effective programs into practice,” says Roona, who was a summit participant. “The research is too thin to do that.” So what is a school district, community, or family to do? One factor that does seem to be consistent is that youths do best when they’re kept busy pursuing long-term goals that also result in personal development. Old-fashioned after-school sports, arts, academic, and community programs — as well as involved, nurturing parents — may be the best way to divert kids from temptations like drugs.

R

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

11

Mayor Rocky Anderson Talks About What It’s Like to…

Drop the D.A.R.E. Program An Interview with the Mayor by Alexandra Eyle Q: Why did you decide to cut D.A.R.E. from your schools? A: I had written a column for a local newspaper about this issue, about two years before I was elected. After I became mayor, I updated my research. I studied the literature and found that there were numerous peer-reviewed research articles establishing that D.A.R.E. had no effect on long-term drug use. Q: As a citizen, and as a mayor, as someone who was investing tax money in D.A.R.E., how did that make you feel? A: I was – and still am – convinced that the American people had been badly betrayed. D.A.R.E. had created, through its public relations efforts, including tshirts and bumper stickers and such, the sense, among the public, that we were really doing something by utilizing D.A.R.E. in our public schools to reduce long-term drug use in our public schools. The net result has been lost and ruined lives, many of which could have been saved through the utilization of effective drug prevention programs. I’m not simply against D.A.R.E.; I’m for effective programs. Q: Which programs are you thinking of, when you speak of effective programs? As far as I know, none have been objectively peer reviewed by independent researchers, and although the Department of Education recently

12

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

Editor’s Note: Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson took office on January 3, 2000, after spending 21 years as an attorney specializing in civil litigation. One of his first acts as mayor was to cut the city’s D.A.R.E. programs and to urge the schools to use more effective drug education/prevention programs. He also established other programs for youths, including after-school and arts programs. In this exclusive interview with ReconsiDer Quarterly editor Alexandra Eyle, Anderson talks about what it was like to end D.A.R.E. and the challenges that lie ahead. Mayor Anderson may be reached through his assistant, Christy Cordwell, at 801-535-7743 or at [email protected].

reviewed 132 programs, reviewers included program developers, and not statisticians. A: The problem has been that the published research has been by the people who have created the programs. Life Skills Training, for instance, appears to be an outstanding program, but, unfortunately, almost all of the research has been done by Gilbert Botvin, the director of Life Skills. I understand that there are two independent evaluations being conducted now on Life Skills Training and I hope that the outcomes in those research projects will be as positive as Dr. Botvin’s have been. Q: You ended all the D.A.R.E. programs in 2000? A: Yes. Q: How did you go about communicating the failures of D.A.R.E. and your vision for the future. Were your constituents resistant at first? A: Yes. And they are still resistant. It’s virtually impossible, no matter how many times you speak out on this issue, regardless of how much the media treats the issue, to overcome the huge public relations campaign conducted by D.A.R.E. I find it really inter-

esting that, now that even D.A.R.E. officials themselves admit that the program has not been effective, and when the Surgeon General and the Department of Education have rendered the same sorts of findings, people still proudly drive their cars around with D.A.R.E. bumper stickers on them. We have a big Pioneer Days parade here every July 24th, and the first year I was in that parade there were pockets of people along the parade route wearing D.A.R.E. t-shirts and the mothers were chanting, “We want D.A.R.E.” I’d also go to community meetings and, when challenged about canceling D.A.R.E., I would lay out the research and show them the unequivocal findings that showed the ineffectiveness of the program. There were times when people would look at me in astonishment and shake their heads and say, “I don’t believe it!” Q: The old, “Don’t confuse me with the facts!” response! A: Exactly. And my response was, “This isn’t religion. This happens to be science. Unless you can show something that demonstrates that D.A.R.E.’s effective, how can you say that we’re really pursuing drug prevention when we’re

actually filling up these time slots and using our resources on something that’s proven to be ineffective?” But there’s a huge emotional component to this, and D.A.R.E. knows it. That’s why they have all their t-shirts and their feel-good approach. You know, when you talk about how ineffective D.A.R.E. is as a drug program, D.A.R.E. advocates fall back on

A: They have put in the ATLAS program, for male high school athletes. And there’s an experimental program called Athena for female high school athletes. Besides these programs, they have a sort of homegrown program, called Prevention Dimension, but it hasn’t been evaluated. I’ve been urging the school board and the superintendent to put in place a comprehensive grade 5 through 12 drug prevention program that’s research-based and effective. Q: Do you have one in particular in mind? A: The two that I’ve recommended are the STAR and Life Skills programs. Q: And do you think they’d adopt them? A: I don’t know. It’s astounding to me that everybody gets so riled up about drug use, but the school board does not seem all that concerned about putting into place programs that seem to really work. Q: Why do you think that is? A: You know, I read a book years ago by Mathea Falco called A Drug-Free America, and she pointed out that one of the reasons for D.A.R.E.’s popularity may be the fact that school administrators and faculty can simply wash their hands of the program and turn it over to the police. They don’t have to be accountable, and they don’t have to do anything to confront the need for drug prevention.

the argument, “Well, isn’t it great to have the police build up a relationship with the students?” I agree with that. I think having officers in the schools is a very good thing. But that begs the question: “What about drug prevention?” That’s why D.A.R.E. was there in the first place. Q: As mayor, you don’t control the schools, so it’s up to the elected school board to put new programs into place. What program or programs is it installing in the schools?

Q: If you were to give advice to a mayor wanting to do what you’ve done, what advice would you give? A: First, become familiar with all of the research in the area. Two, learn to communicate very clearly the rationale for terminating the D.A.R.E. program. I did not do this well, but you need to emphasize the positives – that what you want to do is put in place programs that work. You want to get away from the message that it’s a termination of D.A.R.E. D.A.R.E. has built up their infrastruc-

American people. Now, they’ve completely lost credibility, but instead of letting them use 37,000 more of our school kids as their guinea pigs as they revamp their program, we ought to be replacing them with programs that have integrity and are effective. And we need to have a goal of not just keeping kids off drugs entirely but also reducing the harm to those kids who do try drugs. And that’s something that just drives a lot of people nuts – to even admit that some kids will do drugs no matter what programs are offered to them. But I think a harm-reduction approach is far more honest and is going to be far more effective in saving lives and in promoting the interests of everybody, including taxpayers. Q: What has been the response of other mayors to you? A: I spoke to a group of municipal leaders where one mayor told me that when he raised the issue with his city council as to the advisability of evaluating the effectiveness of D.A.R.E., there was such a public outcry that he had no option but to back down. Some mayors, after the evidence came out as to how ineffective D.A.R.E. has been, still stand by their programs. That’s truly cowardly politics. Anybody who takes a look at the literature will understand that by utilizing D.A.R.E. we’re depriving kids of effective drug prevention. Q: At quite a cost. A: At a huge cost. Both in lives, and monetarily. In Salt Lake City, we were spending $289,000 annually on the officers’ salaries, vehicles, and equipment. There have been estimates that over $700 million a year nationwide has been spent on D.A.R.E. (See We Wasted Billions on D.A.R.E., page 6.) Q: This has been a hot issue for you, and you will no doubt take some bashing in the next election for taking this on. Are you glad you did it anyway? A: I am always glad to do the right thing.

R

ture through a huge fraud on the THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

13

On Reinventing Drug Education,

Especially for Adolescents Rodney Skager, Ph.D.

T

here is no doubt about it. Federal drug education programs have failed. The government is spending between 1 and 1.3 billion a year trying, through its D.A.R.E. program, to get kids to stop using drugs.1 The data regularly show that students continue to use drugs despite abstinence-based, zero-tolerance drug education programs. Last year an annual national survey, Monitoring the Future, reported that 54 percent of American 12th-graders had tried an illicit drug at least once in their lifetime.2 Forty-nine percent had tried marijuana. The true rates of use are probably higher, however. Even on anonymous surveys, self-reported use is likely to be somewhat lower than true rates of use, because not all respondents will be willing to report illegal behavior even under conditions of apparent anonymity. When teens are asked to estimate the percentage of schoolmates of their own age who have tried marijuana, the numbers are much higher than the percentages obtained from self-report surveys. In the latest California survey 72 percent of 11th-graders believed that half or more of their peers had tried marijuana, while only 46 percent said they ever used it. Forty-four percent believed half or more used monthly, but only 26 percent said they used it in the previous month!3 Some researchers dismiss youth estimates of peer drug use, arguing that they exaggerate actual prevalence levels. In so doing, these researchers miss the point entirely. Estimated peer use reflects youth perception of how things

14

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

Editor’s Note: Rodney Skager is Professor Emeritus in the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies at UCLA. He served for 10 years as program director at the School’s Center for the Study of Evaluation and while on academic leave served as senior researcher at the UNESCO Institute of Education in Hamburg, Germany (1975-76). He has been a consultant or part-time staff member at WestEd (formerly Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory) since 1992. In 1985 he was asked by California Attorney General John Van de Kamp to develop and administer a secondary school survey of substance use and related information (California Student Substance Use Survey). The survey was later mandated as a biennial effort by the California legislature and now is also sponsored by the California Department of Education and Alcohol and Drug Programs. WestEd, a nonprofit California educational R&D organization, has administered the survey since 1991 and Dr. Skager has continued as its codirector. In addition, he served as outside evaluator for the Addiction Technology Transfer Center at UC San Diego on a long-term project sponsored by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and also as Principal Investigator for a national project sponsored by the Center for Substance Use Prevention. The latter incorporated developmental programs addressing children and parents in substance abusing families and adolescent mothers. Dr. Skager has published research articles and reports on school-based identification and intervention programs for children from alcohol and drug abusing families, self-esteem and substance use, school characteristics associated with student substance use, attributes of high-risk adolescent substance users, and prevention policy. He is a contributing editor of Prevention File and a member of the board of directors of the Phoenix Houses of California as well as a former member of the research advisory board of “Just Say No” International. He has taught measurement, research design and qualitative research methods at the graduate level. His current teaching responsibilities include adolescent development and prevention education. Rodney Skager may be reached at 831-4842767 or at [email protected].

really are, and it is perception that establishes what is ordinary or normal. Believing that a majority of one’s peers have tried marijuana tends to legitimatize use of that drug, but this does not necessarily apply to other illicit drugs or to problematic use. As a third year university student observed, “We accept pot way more than other drugs. I mean, you watch TV and there are jokes about pot. Everybody’s laughing. If they talk about shooting up heroin, nobody’s really laughing…most edu-

cated people now feel that it’s not really a serious drug. It’s funny, it’s accepted, we know most people have tried it at some point, so it’s not a bad drug.” (This and later comments from young people in their late teens or early 20s were collected by peer interviewers as part of an ongoing study of youth attitudes about, and experience with, drugs.) Most teenagers know things about drugs than they were never told in pre-

vention education. Consider what one female college student said recently about her initiation into the use of marijuana at age 15. “In high school drugs were around and my friends and I knew where to get

teens can learn to be intelligent consumers. In deciding to buy their drugs from the honor students, they were applying, at age 15, an important principle of harm reduction—get your dope from a safe source.

Indoctrination Does Not Work in an Open Society By definition, education must be honest. But in embracing zero-tolerance drug prevention education, teachers must exaggerate dangers. They must present only one side of the story. They must indoctrinate, in other words. But indoctrination “works” only when students do not have access to contradictory information. Unfortunately, on entering secondary school most teens soon learn that many older students enjoy drinking and using without suffering significant negative consequences or progressing to problematic use. As a result, many students think that their teachers, by espousing the now discredited “gateway theory” and ignoring the fact that many people enjoy moderate use of alcohol, marijuana, and ecstasy without ill effects, may also have exaggerated the dangers of using cocaine or heroin.4 And once young people realize that they have been conned by drug education, they often dismiss the entire message, including the valid dangers that they were warned about.

Alicia Montero, Rod Skager, and Claudio Montero, a former doctoral student of Skager’s, enjoy a reunion at San Francisco them. People accepted it as a part of high school life. When I was in 10th grade, my friends and I were hanging out after school. We decided that we wanted to smoke some pot, so we walked around the quad and asked the people that knew about drugs where we could get some. We went to the honor roll students who sold drugs. We didn’t trust the stoners because they probably laced their drugs. We bought … and smoked it that day. That was the first time that I tried drugs.” The story provides a concrete example of just how easy it is for high school students in California to obtain marijuana. It also reveals that without guidance from adults even relatively young

The fact is, substance use has become normalized among mainstream American adolescents. Normalization means that drugs are an accepted part of the culture in which most American adolescents live. It means that users as well as many nonusers accept experience with drugs as normal. It means that a substantial majority of older teens believe that most of their same age peers have tried marijuana and that student leaders and other social icons have tried it and that many or most currently use it. Substance use is firmly embedded in the teen social scene, part of the shared experience of both users and nonusers. If drugs are part of the normal teen experience in a country where billions of tax dollars have been poured into preventing drug use, what happened? Where did we go wrong?

Three False Assumptions Undermine Current Drug Education Programs Zero-tolerance drug education programs also fail miserably because they are shaped by three erroneous assumptions about youth development and socialization: teens use drugs because they are naïve; teens use drugs because they feel bad about themselves; and peer pressure forces teens to use drugs. Assumption #1: Young people try drugs because they are naïve. How can this be in a teen social environment replete with all kinds of information about drugs and their effects? Like the 10thgraders buying marijuana, most teens learn a great deal about drugs by midadolescence or even earlier. Another aspect of this assumption is the widely prevailing view among

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

15

adults that even after puberty adolescents remain in a biologically distinct stage of development. It is this belief that allows so-called experts to concoct irrelevant or even patronizing forms of prevention education that alienate and insult so many young people. Human development specialists have long been aware that early in adolescence most youth develop the capacity to reason like adults. What Piaget labeled as “formal reasoning” empowers them to think hypothetically and thus to question the world as it is. To educators and parents, this means that what adults say is no longer taken for granted, especially when contrary information and opinions are available. This is why attempts to “inoculate” elementary school children against later experimentation with substances have flopped so resoundingly once those children become adolescents.

Assumption #2: Adolescents use illegal drugs to erase negative feelings about themselves. All deficit hypotheses assume that most adolescents are deficient in some way and drink or use to feel better about themselves. Early programs targeted self-esteem, but research failed to support either their efficacy or the assumption itself.6 Life skills education, the best-known current deficit program, targets deficits in self-efficacy. Yet this approach has been found to be itself deficient in producing results.7 Common sense also suggests otherwise. Many high school stu-

peers are doing.8 Given the normalization of substance use, it would be more accurate to say that students begin using drugs because they are modeling behaviors that they perceive to be normal or “cool.” Nevertheless, the peer pressure hypothesis has particular appeal for many adults. After all, it makes adolescents themselves responsible for the problem and ignores the contributions of an adult society that adores drugs, whether illegal, pharmaceutical, or derived from a process of fermentation. Yet, insightful observers such as Patricia Hersch in her book A Tribe Apart have noted an atmosphere of mutual tolerance, a do-your-ownthing ethic of personal relationships among adolescents today.9 As a college student who had abstained from drug use reported, “My friends offered marijuana because of courtesy…because they felt obligated since we were friends. However, they never teased me for not smoking.” Another said, “Among my friends some people choose not to use (marijuana) and others do it. And nobody thinks less of any other person.” These kinds of observations were made frequently in the interviews.

...teachers must exaggerate dangers...but indoctrination works only when students do not have access to contradictory information....if prevention is to work, teaching must be honest.

David Moshman concludes in his recent textbook that adolescence is best understood as the first stage of adulthood. He presents evidence that the crucial difference between adolescents and adults is in accumulated life experience rather than biological development.5 This is consistent with the longknown fact that by age 16 youth do as well on tests of intelligence as they ever will. Adolescent and adult populations also overlap on critical indicators of personal maturity. Significant numbers of adolescents are better at anticipating consequences of their behavior, controlling impulses, and interpersonal skills than some adults who never achieve these hallmarks of maturity. Understanding and building on these teen capabilities is crucial to creating successful drug education programs.

16

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

dent leaders — the most successful students in the high school social world — use alcohol and marijuana. In fact, these social leaders belong to an elite social group to which many ordinary students aspire to belong. It is especially unlikely that these popular students lack social skills or that the icons of high school athletics feel ignored and dismissed. Stories about alcohol and other drug use by student leaders are common in the interviews. A graduating senior woman recalled, “The president, vicepresident, treasurer and athletes used marijuana. Most consumption of illicit drugs was done at parties. The teachers and administrators knew the identities of the drug users, but they seemed to look the other way.” Assumption #3: Kids use drugs because their peers pressure them to do so. Training in so-called “refusal skills” has been the antidote to this assumed fact. But research in both the U.S. and Britain supports the alternative explanation that kids simply like to imitate spontaneously what they believe their

Members of all groups actively contrast themselves with members of other groups. This process of defining just how one’s group is distinctive helps fashion important facets of personal identity, especially beliefs and associated behavior. For many young people, to drink or use is to participate in a ritual that affirms group identity. It is often a way of saying, “We are different from adults. We do things that they forbid us to do.” Unfortunately, the ways in which we go about prevention play directly into this process; by forbidding use, we inadvertently encourage it.

Zero-Tolerance Deterrent Punishment Fails, Too When our zero-tolerance prevention education programs fail, we punish drug users by suspending or expelling them from school — standard practice among schools throughout the United States. The idea is that such severe punishment will frighten others and deter them from using drugs. Yet this approach has failed, in large part because very few users are identified and caught. Teens that do drugs do not expect to be caught, and many enjoy the adventure involved in doing something that adults forbid. But there is a more negative effect of this policy. Suspension and expulsion merely eject youthful offenders out of the classroom and onto the street. As one university student said, “Expulsion is getting rid of the problem kids and not getting rid of the problem in those kids.” A better approach would be for schools to apply consequences for alcohol and other drug use that allow most students to remain in school. After all, students who are caught violating the rules are not necessarily problematic users. Nor are they automatically causing harm to themselves or others. As for those who are most severely involved with drugs — they often drop out of school without having to be pushed out. Applying reasonable and humane sanctions, including on-site suspensions and exclusion from extracurricular activities, may be sufficient for teens who have not demonstrated problems in living associated with substance use.

themselves, in the form of retaliation by the student. Thus, the harsh, punitive nature of the system forces compassionate people to become “enablers,” by keeping silent. This “notalk” rule invariably prevails when deterrent punishment rather than assistance and ordinary discipline dominates institutional policy toward those who break the rules.

Reinventing Drug Education in a World Where Drug Use Will Persist Drug prevention can and should be reinvented. Not because a reinvented prevention would eliminate substance use in the adolescent population — drugs other than alcohol are here to stay. Accepting this fact is the first step out of the morass in which we find ourselves.

Starting with Realistic Goals Acknowledging that illicit drug use will persist in this society relieves us from pursuit of the impossible. We are free

ness of helping resources in schools and communities. Drug prevention education can address these and other pragmatic goals without giving permission to use, as those who defend the status quo invariably charge. In any case, kids do not ask adults for permission to drink or use. This approach recognizes that young people are going to make choices about how to live their own lives. It gives them tools with which to make informed choices if they do decide to try drugs.

Interactive Teaching & Learning10 If prevention is to work, teaching must be honest and relationships between teachers and students authentic. This means that we must recognize and value the experience of young people. We must encourage student participation and interaction. Predetermined, adult-delivered curricula work against this principle, however. Worst of all, a lock-step curriculum ignores the significance of the teachable moment, that information or experience is best shared when it is relevant, when learners want to know.

...adult society adores drugs, whether illegal,

pharmaceutical, or derived from a process of

Another problem with deterrent punishment is that it prevents concerned people from reporting students whom they suspect are using drugs. Teachers and worried peers dare not report what they see for fear of severe consequences to the student in question — or to

fermentation. to set more realistic and pragmatic goals for prevention education. Let me list a few: • Delay age of first use. • Reduce (rather than eliminate) overall drug use. • Help students to understand that there are bad times and places to do drugs. • Reduce problematic use including bingeing, mixing drugs, using unknown or impure substances. • Promote responsibility for self and others and related knowledge about (a) signs of abuse and dependency, (b) how to approach and assist people showing signs of problematic use, and (c) aware-

• A lesson or program is interactive when the teacher stimulates discussion and creates activities wherein teens can ask for the information they need. Dialog is superior to top-down teaching because it encourages active participation in the learning process. Adult facilitators can take it for granted that most teens have had their own encounters with drugs, even if they have abstained from use. They deserve honest, straightforward answers to their questions. • The facilitator must be a credible and reliable source of information. Teenagers participating in focus groups in a California study conducted by Joel Brown and his colleagues frequently expressed doubts about the expertise of their prevention teachers.11 The fa-

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

17

cilitator must demonstrate at the outset an understanding of the culture of drug use, be able to use the drug words in use among teenagers, and accept that many students associate alcohol and other drugs with positive experiences.

and expulsion. The program may be associated with the school or with a community organization. Both should be located in a place that protects the anonymity of students who are referred.

• The approach must be non-judgmental. The facilitator understands that participants will make their own choices about drugs. Safety rather than morality is the theme. Reducing harmful drug use and developing rational decision-making skills are legitimate goals for teens who are heavily involved with drugs but are as yet unwilling to accept abstinence as a solution.

The barriers to the implementation of these proposals and identifying the kinds of adults who can make them work should not be underestimated. To begin with, current federal guidelines permit funding for abstinence-based programs only. Support is not available

Barriers to Implementation of Interactive Learning Programs

for any programs that approach substance use honestly and openly. In addition, it may be that most schools as we know them cannot provide the type of learning process proposed here. They may lack teachers who are comfortable with truly interactive learning situations, or who have internalized the knowledge that is required when predetermined, lock-step curricula are abandoned. Community agencies independent of schools may be a more appropriate venue. But the issue, at least in my view, is not whether we do these things, but when and how.

R

• Ordinarily information is offered in response to questions asked by the students. Attempting to convince many teenagers that they should not use drugs is usually counterproductive. Instead, facilitators should concentrate on giving complete information on drugs including specifics such as what drugs are and their effects, keeping personal safety in mind, public policy and the legal implications of use, how to identify problem users, and the significance of personal development and social responsibility.

Helping Teens Who Are in Trouble with Alcohol or Illicit Drugs Good teachers are likely to be approached by students seeking help for their drug problem, whether it is with alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs. They cannot turn away at this critical moment. They must know how to intervene effectively, and connect the child to appropriate resources or agencies in the school and community. Ideally, there should be a substance abuse counselor at the school to whom the classroom facilitator can refer problem users. All schools should offer a Student Assistance Program for such students. This is the compassionate and socially responsible alternative to suspension

18

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

Still True? Still True!

Recommended Reading: AFTER PROHIBITION: AN ADULT APPROACH TO DRUG POLICIES IN THE 21ST CENTURY Timothy Lynch, Editor Cato Institute 2000 Paper. 193 pp. $18.95

By Kevin B. Zeese

From inside the beltway it is rare to see drug policy discussed sensibly. So often, rather than acknowledge the ineffectiveness of our current approach to drug control, federal officials just seem to want to repeat the mistakes of the past. The Cato Institute is often a refreshing oasis inside the beltway. It brings forward issues in ways that others tend to avoid. In the drug policy field, it has helped achieve federal forfeiture laws when it published Forfeiting Our Property Rights, by Rep. Henry Hyde, which exposed the rampant abuse of forfeiture powers. Now, with its recent publication of After Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies in the 21st Century, it challenges the drug prohibition paradigm. Edited by Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, After Prohibition recognizes the bankruptcy of current policy and seeks to come up with a new approach for the 21st century. Since 1980, the U.S. has spent approximately a half-trillion federal, state, and local tax dollars on the Drug War. But while the drug warriors achieved record numbers of arrests and incarcerations, and record interdiction and eradication of drugs, drug-related problems became worse than ever. Cocaine and heroin are purer and cheaper than in 1980, and there are more overdose deaths and mentions of

drugs in hospital emergency rooms than ever. Facing the fact that we are losing this war, and badly, Lynch has brought together forward-thinking people, including former drug warriors, some of whom have been members of the Drug Enforcement Agency or police departments, and noted academics and drug reform advocates, who provide a variety of perspectives on drug policy. Perhaps the most important is the Republican Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson – one of the few politicians in America who is ready and willing to face reality and argue for a new paradigm. He is in favor of decriminalizing marijuana possession and making its sale legal, with age restrictions and other controls. Johnson argues that legalization would weaken international cartels and street drug gangs and bring the marijuana market above ground where it can be regulated like other businesses. Noting that New Mexico has the highest heroin overdose rate in the U.S., he also argues for making health care more easily available to users and adopting harm reduction strategies that have been successful in Europe and Australia. With the federal Drug War budget approaching $20 billion annually, former Police Chief Joseph McNamara asks, “What have we got for our money?” In addition to the undiminished problem of drug abuse, he points out, drug profits — markups as great as 17,000 percent — have corrupted public officials,

created widespread violence, endangered whole nations, and created a system of law enforcement that favors racial profiling of black Americans. McNamara urges the land of the free to stop making what is merely an unconventional life style a crime. He concludes: “It is clear that doggedly continuing a policy that has failed for nearly a century is no way to start a new century.” The only disappointing essay is that of former California Attorney General Dan Lungren, who supports the Drug War except to say, “We should always be ready to re-examine our positions.” After Prohibition comes at an important time in the evolution of the Drug War. Our military is becoming increasingly involved in the Colombian Drug War, we’ve gone through a record prison-building binge and the public seems to be tiring of this war. Reformers have won initiatives in each of the last three elections on various reform issues. The time is right for our nation to begin to take drugs seriously and come up with an approach that learns from past mistakes, stops repeating them, and develops an effective, humane, and sensible drug policy. This book is a good start to launching that dialogue. Kevin Zeese is President of Common Sense for Drug Policy, a drug policy reform organization in Washington, D.C. (http://www.csdp.org).

R

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

19

Guest Speaker:

Ignorance Hurts Both Drug Users and Their Families By Susan P. Koningen

A

lmost seven years ago, I awoke in the middle of the night to the sound of someone pounding on my door, a forceful rat-tat-tat that stated ‘Get up — this is important!’ I grabbed my dressing gown and bolted for the door.

Koningen, a single mother, tells her story of almost losing her child to drugs. She now works full-time helping parents and children cope with drug addiction.

“Dear God,” I thought, “please let everything be okay.” Opening the door, I faced two policemen. A million scenarios flashed through my mind, but none came even close to the reality of why the boys in blue were calling on me that night. One of the officers spoke. “Do you have a son called Brett?” I answered “Yes, I do.” Then, “Do you know of an Amy Johnston?” Again I answered “Yes, she is my son’s fiancée. What’s happened?” I motioned for them to enter. Once inside, the older of the officers spoke. “I’m afraid we have some bad news.” My bland stare belied my terror. I held my breath while he continued. “I have been advised to inform you that Amy is dead, and your son is in intensive care at St. John’s Hospital. We believe it was a drug-induced suicide pact.” I felt as though my heart had been torn from my body, and the pain was so intense that I could barely draw breath. Then tears of grief flooded my consciousness. That was seven long years ago. The following months were a nightmare. I

20

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

Editor’s Note: Susan P. Koningen worked in business in her early 20s, cofounding a sheet metal engineering company in the Caribbean as well as a “colonial home design and supply” arm of a building company in her native Australia. She has also owned and operated a real estate office. While working with a local charity, she coauthored a working model for training and developing skills among the long-term unemployed.

didn’t know what to say to my son to help him! Each morning when I awoke, my first two thoughts were: Is he okay, or will I find him dead in his bed? Oh God, please help me find a way to help my son. My fingers became worn to the bone through trying to find someone to help us. The ignorance and judgmental attitudes of those in the “helping” professions, plus their lack of compassion, inexperience or inability to counsel us, left us feeling isolated and alienated from society. I thank God that my son was able to find some support to try to make sense of his life. I was not so fortunate. Determined that no parent should have to face this shattering experience alone,

She has created a 12-week recovery program for families, Empowering Families to Break Down the Barriers. Over the past six years, over 700 families have sought and received information, education, and support from her. According to Koningen, 80 percent have “been empowered to take responsibility for developing solutions to their problems and, thereby, reconcile and consolidate the family unit.” Twenty percent drop out, but some return. As for the children who are the focus of the families’ efforts, Koningen says: • 40 percent are in remittance. • 40 percent have reduced usage, improved social skills, and strengthened family bonds. • 20 percent have been referred to other health organizations because of extensive psychiatric/psychological difficulties, and the family has united and been supportive. Koningen has just formed The Federation of Youth & Family Affairs, where she serves as CEO and “life skills specialist,” addressing the multiple problems faced by youth and families in today’s society through three programs. In addition to offering the Empowering Families to Break Down the Barriers program, the federation is forming two more programs: The Chrysalis Program, an early intervention program to help teens draw on their inner resources, and use them for their own health, well being, maturation, and sense of satisfaction; and Freedom of Choice, which will help people leaving treatment to re-enter society without relapsing into drug or alcohol abuse.

I formed Empowering Families, a support group for families of children using or abusing drugs. We meet at my home, and at every meeting we have one goal in mind: “To break down the communication barriers dividing us and to reconnect with our children, so that we could support their recovery.” Because so few resources are there for families, I also published my own ebook, Empowering Families to Break Down the Barriers, available at www.zeus-publications.com. I want to help families understand that their children can’t recover alone, and to help them to: • Stop blaming themselves for their children’s addictions. • Understand the many life experiences that influence and impact on their children’s lives. • Learn about addictions, rehabilitation, and the recovery process. • Become more aware of their actions and reactions to their drug use. • Communicate more effectively and honestly with their children. • Base their value on who they are, not what they are or what they have. • Value themselves for the miracle they are. • Teach their children how to value themselves. • Empower other members of the family to take responsibility for their lives. • Develop strategies that create positive changes in family and addict behaviors. • Rewrite their life stories of who they are and what they want out of life. • Empower their children to do the same. • Reunite the family unit. • “Minimize” the lapse/relapse potential of the child in recovery. • Prevent younger siblings taking up drug use. • Love themselves more honestly and openly.

If we don’t change our mind-set about how we deal with drugs in society, then we can expect more and more of our children to be incarcerated or die, in this continuing and pointless tragedy. It’s time to work together to put the emphasis on education rather than enforcement, and rehabilitation rather than incarceration, to consolidate our families, communities, and our society.

Together, we can stop the snipers killing off our children, one at a time, in this so-called “War on Drugs.” We can end the reign of terror. Susan P. Koningen runs Empowering Families from her home in Surfers Paradise, Australia. She may be reached at P.O. Box 2554 Burleigh M.D.C. 4220 Queensland, Australia, or at [email protected].

R

RECONSIDER

MAKE A GREAT IMPRESSION…

Wear the ReconsiDer T. You’ll get a LOT of positive comments! Send your size and a check for $12 plus $3 s&h to: ReconsiDer T, 205 Onondaga Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13207.

I urge all families who need to come out of the darkness to walk with me, and find your way back into the light, and fight for your precious children. They desperately need strong allies.

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

21

Notes on Drug Education for College Students By Craig Reinarman, Ph.D.

R

obert M. Hutchins, former President of the University of Chicago, once wrote that “the object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.” I do not think drug education as currently practiced meets this objective, because I think drug education is not generally designed as education at all. At best, most so-called drug education is designed to teach young people what to think rather than how to think. At worst, it is moral ideology masquerading as medical science. In this essay, I attempt to describe some of the lessons I have drawn from my experiences teaching a university-level sociology course about drugs, in the hope that these reflections will stimulate other teachers to reflect upon their own experiences. The overwhelming focus of drug education efforts is on elementary and high school students. On one level, this is as it should be: get them before they start and you'll have less aggregate risk. But on another level, there is an irony here, for college is when millions of young people begin their drug use — if not their very first use of any drug, often their first use of some drugs, and more often than not their first regular use, especially underage alcohol use, which is, for most of them, “illicit drug use.” It is in college where the family norms that most parents hope will keep their children away from drug abuse are most attenuated. Not that colleges and universities don't have drug and alcohol education available for students; they do. At my uni-

22

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

Editor’s Note: Craig Reinarman is Professor and Chair of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Visiting Scholar at the Center for Drug Research at the University of Amsterdam. He has served on the board of directors of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, as a consultant to the World Health Organization’s Programme on Substance Abuse, and as principal investigator on research grants from the National Institute of Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Justice. Dr. Reinarman is the author of American States of Mind (Yale University Press, 1987), coauthor of Cocaine Changes (Temple University Press, 1991), and co-editor of Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (University of California Press, 1997). He has published articles on drug use, law, and policy in Theory and Society, British Journal of Addiction, International Journal of Drug Policy, Addiction Research, and Contemporary Drug Problems, and other journals. Craig Reinarman may be reached at 831459-2617 or at [email protected].

versity, for example, each and every new student is briefed on the dangers of drugs — licit and illicit — and the rules against using them, upon entering the dormitory (which, some parents suspect, may be as much about covering the university’s institutional ass as it is about anything else). Yet, beyond the exposure students get to drug education as part of their orientation, there is little more than the usual array of “just say no” and “here are the risks” pamphlets, local 12-step group meeting schedules in the counselor's waiting room, and hapless residence assistants halfheartedly spouting the rules in what is, outside of some Bible colleges, usually a Sisyphian struggle against students’ search for altered states. After all, going away to college is to some degree about testing oneself, about taking risks, about exploring consciousness, and about living independently, out of visual range of the panopticonic parental gaze from which the student has just, in a sense, escaped. If that is a reasonable albeit partial description of college life, then a certain amount of drug taking is in-

evitable if not normative. All this is a way of saying that one of the things that we might want to think more about is the nature, efficacy, and unintended consequences of drug education for college and university students. To prepare this essay, I tried to reflect on my own practices after teaching a course called “Drugs and Society” to about 200 undergraduates each year for the past 15 years. These practices, I soon realized, were not so much thought out ahead of time as they were figured out as I went along, flying by the seat of my pedagogical pants, learning from those I was teaching. In what follows, I try to make explicit some of the things I intuited as I went along and to share a few principles that seem to have worked.

A Paradoxical Premise One of the first things I learned from my students was that they had been bombarded by what they saw as heavyhanded anti-drug propaganda, and that if I wanted them to take me seriously, to believe I knew something worth

learning, I could not even pretend to be giving them only value-free, “scientific” information unearthed by elite “experts” and provided to them “for their own good.” Clear majorities of my students walk into the classroom with deep suspicions of what they have been

smoke marijuana care nothing for the American Dream. They prefer instead to seek creativity, spontaneous pleasure, freedom, and excitement.” The DEA “curators” made several false and rather telling assumptions in writing and publicly displaying such a caption: (1) that “creativity, spontaneous pleasure, freedom, and excitement” are not part of the American Dream — which would be shocking news, for instance, on Madison Avenue; (2) that these experiences are so self-evidently wrong that no condemnatory rationale was needed; (3) that absent the influence of marijuana, American youth would not desire such sensations on their own; and (4) that most of the 70 million Americans who have at least tried marijuana have lost interest in the American Dream as a consequence. I tried to imagine how my students would interpret the same caption, how they would “decode” such a “text.” I could not persuade myself that they would infer anything that might reduce the likelihood that they would try marijuana or increase the likelihood that they would believe their government’s messages about drugs. A recent story in the Washington Post reported that Senator Orin Hatch (R– Utah) had written the preface to a book-

given thus far in their lives in the way of drug education.

right mind would allow herself to become preoccupied with “social causes, race relations, environmental issues,” and so on? Obviously such horrid symptoms could only occur under the influence of marijuana. If this is any indication of the right-wing political and moral ideology that is being thinly veiled as drug education, then the mystery is not why so many young people try marijuana but why more young people don’t. In short, as a teacher I have come to believe that if I want to engage in drug education, I have to be a critic of drug education.

Some Pedagogical Practices/ Principles • The first and most important thing I learned is that I must try to get students to “just say know,”1 rather than merely to “just say no.” This is, after all, precisely what we try to teach them in every other course; it is perfectly in keeping with the best norms and values of universities. To preach abstinence values alone, even if dressed up in scientific garb, is to be seen as a moralist and to risk having the information dismissed. University students have worked very hard to get where they are and have thus earned the right to be given a full range of information. After all, we encourage them to consider all sides of other issues and to think critically about everything else, so by what logic can we ask them to forget all that when it comes to drugs? And if we did, how long would it take them to figure out that we had done so and to protest? About two seconds, that’s how long. So I begin my drug course by telling my students that while this is not a “how to” course on drugs, it is also not a “just say no” course either.

To preach abstinence values alone...is to be seen as a moralist and to risk having the information dismissed.

Two recent examples: I had occasion to visit the new Drug Enforcement Administration Museum, on the ground floor of a highrise office building just across the Potomac from Washington, DC. The Museum's exhibits were designed to get across some basic information having to do with the evils of drugs. I was immediately struck by one picture showing a rather ordinary looking group of young people on a street corner, with the caption, “Hepsters — black and white (only black were shown) — who

let titled How Parents Can Help Children Live Marijuana-Free. In this preface Hatch urged parents to study the booklet in order to learn the danger signs that their children may be using drugs. Among the “signs” of drug abuse cited in the booklet is “excessive preoccupation with social causes, race relations, environmental issues, etc.” Where to begin? What student in her

• Every time I fail to make distinctions between drugs some student “busts”

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

23

me. Students have heard authorities invoke the great chemical bogeyman “drugs” throughout their lives, often from kindergarten on, and by the time they get to their second or third year of university they know better. So if I don’t make distinctions among drugs based on relative risks, then I run the risk of being dismissed as an inexperienced ideologue or an old fogey, or both (and the closer I get to actually being an old fogey, the more important I seem to think it is to avoid such dismissals). • I am teaching this course in a sociology curriculum. Most students have had some sociology and/or criminology, so they understand that drug issues constitute a wonderful window on the structure of society — on the social construction of social problems, on the sociology of law, on how the criminal justice system functions, on the politics of public policy. So I include material on how drug use gets defined as deviant; about the conditions under which drug scares, as phenomena in their own right, arise; and how “drug problems” get constructed as such. I do this, as I try to stress to my students, not in order to de-legitimize the anti-drug messages they’ve gotten and certainly not to claim that there are no risks in drug use. On the contrary, I feel that only by showing that I am not part of the Drug Czar’s chorus, that I am not willing to take government claims about the horrors of drug use at face value, and that I am willing to look critically at everything, will I then have their trust — the sine qua non of any kind of education.

matrix of social problems in which these problems are invariably embedded. I try to get them to take seriously the notion that social context is crucially important — e.g., to understand that “bad trips” on LSD and heroin overdoses are caused by more than malevolent molecules; that the very effects of a drug are shaped in important ways by the contexts in which it is used, contexts which are themselves shaped in important ways by our current drug laws — these laws being overwhelmingly the products of a long sequence of drug scares that began with the antialcohol crusade at the start of the 19th century. And since some of these stu-

of the course how many personally know someone who has seriously hurt themselves or truly messed up their lives and the lives of those around them because of their drug use. Nearly all raise their hands. Then I ask them to enumerate all they know about those persons, including what else was going on in their lives that might have influenced them to over-use drugs. For most students, all it takes is a moment’s reflection to figure out that the people they know who have hurt themselves or others because of the misuse of drugs had a lot going against them to begin with. Second, I also ask them to take seriously their own experience in drug education as data. Did they believe what the drug education curriculum to which they were exposed tried to teach them? Did it change their behavior? Were their peers helped by the course? Were they less likely to try drugs? Were they more or less cynical about drug education after experiencing drugs firsthand? Such questions quickly lead them to wonder whether spending billions of tax dollars to “market” antidrug ideology is effective; whether it is a good idea to use public resources to define abstinence as normal and any drug use (other than Ritalin and Prozac, of course) as pathological. In general, students do not seem to like drug education that tries to get them to think ill of, snitch on, and ostracize each other — what might be called disintegrative shaming. Does such an approach have a solid ethical foundation or a solid theory of human behavior change behind it? Or is it based on fear? My students often ask in this context whether drug education programs have been rigorously evaluated. I have to tell them that the largest program, D.A.R.E., and the more recent billiondollar advertising blitz of former Drug

I...want them to understand how the selective enforcement of drug laws is the source of the

greatest single category of offenders in our prisons.

I try to get my students to use their sociological imaginations so that they come to see that one cannot understand drug problems apart from the

24

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

dents have studied criminology, and since the U.S. is the world leader in imprisonment, I especially want them to understand how the selective enforcement of drug laws is the source of the single greatest category of offenders in our prisons. • I try to combat pharmacological determinism, which in my view contributes to the false perception that drugs are all-powerful and that, once in their grip, users are powerless. I want my students to understand that there is nothing in the molecules of these substances or in their own brains to lead us to believe that any specific behavioral consequence flows from the ingestion of any drug. Behavioral consequences are contingent, not inevitable, products of complex social interaction rather than nature. • I try to get my students to take their own experience seriously as data. This works two ways: first, I ask on day one

Czar Barry McCaffrey have both been evaluated and shown to have no impact on adolescent substance use. Even if I wanted to, I could not persuade my students to stop questioning what they have been taught or avoid thinking critically about received wisdom. • Perhaps the most difficult and yet the most important piece of drug education I do in my course is to prevent the proverbial babies from being thrown out with the bath water. By this I mean that I try to persuade my students that even though the drug field is highly politicized and they have often been systematically misled by the exaggerated and simplistic scare tactics of their own government, they should not, therefore, dismiss all warnings. In the end, if I have succeeded in getting them to read widely on the history of drug problems and drug policy, and to think critically about what these have to do with the structure of our society, I feel that I have earned the credibility I need to get them to listen to me when I tell them, “All drugs have risks.” The price of trust is truth. If students perceive me as truly leveling with them, rather than trying to get them to behave in the ways I and other adults approve of, then I feel I have the best chance of getting them to accept the evidence I present on the relative risks of drug use in all its forms. Being so distant from the cultural mainstream and the dominant forms of drug education, my approach does not please everyone. Each year, a few students write in their evaluations that I am too critical of existing drug policy or insufficiently

alarmed by the problems caused by drug abuse. But on the course evaluation form, where it asks whether they would “recommend the course to a friend” and whether they would “take the course again,” somewhere between 75% and 95% of students check “yes.” Enrollments have grown, year after year. I like to think that this is because, as one student wrote, “It was a refresh-

ing alternative to all the negative propaganda about drugs. I have been inspired to try and promote more community outreach programs, and I will recommend this class to all my peers.” (Endnote — back cover)

R

An earlier version of this essay was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology in San Francisco on November 17, 2000.

IT’S YOUR SPEAKERS’ BUREAU.

USE IT! The Speakers’ Bureau promotes ReconsiDer’s shared beliefs and policies. Our message is powerful. Our messengers are experts in the War on Drugs. Use them! Speakers are profiled in this brochure available from ReconsiDer, 205 Onondaga Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13207.

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

25

A Focus on Safety First Strikes a Universal Chord By Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D.

T

wo years ago I wrote Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens, Drugs and Drug Education, a 17-page booklet published by the Lindesmith Center. Since then, over 30,000 copies have been distributed to public and private schools, state and local health agencies, public policy institutes, treatment facilities, military bases, and individual parents and educators in all 50 states and 31 countries around the world. Initially, many were sent at our initiative, but then we began receiving thousands of requests for additional copies from around the world. And of the many comments I received about this booklet, almost none were critical of it. Why was this publication so popular among parents and teachers? I believe its popularity is due to the fact that it is one of the few publications advocating a harm reduction perspective regarding teenagers and drugs. The message seems to have resonated.

Responding to Misinformation What prompted me to write this booklet, and the reason for the almost universal support it has received, goes back to something that happened back in 1987. That year, my daughter, then in fifth-grade, returned from school and proudly declared that she was part of the D.A.R.E. program, and now knew about drugs. “When a person smokes marijuana,” Annie announced, “half of their brain cells are erased forever. That’s what the nice police officer told us, and he knows.” Although the school had required parental permission for practically every other non-classroom

26

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

Editor’s Note: Marsha Rosenbaum is a medical sociologist and director of the San Francisco office of The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, a drug policy institute with offices in New York, Washington DC, New Mexico, Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco. She received her doctorate in sociology from the University of California at San Francisco in 1979. From 1977 to 1995 Rosenbaum was the principal investigator on ten grants funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, completing studies of female heroin addicts, methadone maintenance treatment and policy, MDMA (Ecstasy), cocaine, and drug use during pregnancy. She is the author of the book Women on Heroin and coauthor of the books Pursuit of Ecstasy: The MDMA Experience and Pregnant Women on Drugs: Combating Stereotypes and Stigma, as well as numerous scholarly articles about drug use, drug addiction, and drug policy. She is also the author of three booklets: Just Say What?: An Alternative View of Solving America’s Drug Problem; Kids, Drugs, and Drug Education: A Harm Reduction Approach; and Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens, Drugs, and Drug Education. Her opinion pieces have appeared in many national publications, including Newsday, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times. Dr. Rosenbaum co-chaired the international conferences “Just Say Know: New Directions in Drug Education” and “The State of Ecstasy: The Medicine, Science and Culture of MDMA.”

activity (including sex education), this was the first I had heard of Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Although I was working at the time as a researcher for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, drug education had not been my focus. But now my daughter’s words made me remember the nice Jewish girl I’d once interviewed, who happened to be an incarcerated heroin addict. She’d gotten into hard drugs after taking a high school drug education class in which she was told that both marijuana and heroin caused addiction. She tried marijuana and realized she’d been lied to, so when heroin came her way, she tried that, too. Like many young people, she and her friends no longer believed anything adults told them about drugs. Now that drug education had become personal, I was worried. What if my

own daughter went down the same dangerous road as that nice Jewish heroin addict? I became curious about what D.A.R.E. was teaching my child, and so I set out to learn more about America’s drug education programs. In the course of my research, I discovered that anti-drug messages have been around for nearly a century, from Temperance tales of permanent alcoholinduced brain damage to Reefer Madness-style warnings about marijuana. Then Reagan’s escalation of the War on Drugs kicked drug education into high gear. Since the mid-1980s, preteens and teens have been exposed to a plethora of “prevention” messages, from television ads to school-based classes to billboards to Red Ribbon parades. Young people have learned how to “just say no,” taken drug-free pledges, and been taught to make the

right decision about drugs. Even those teenagers who were raised to be independent, creative thinkers learned that there was only one correct decision when it came to drugs. If there was ever any doubt, escalating zero tolerance policies insisted that students cultivate refusal skills.

drug free. Drugs (defined broadly) are everywhere: we medicate with pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter meds (often introducing our children to Ritalin as their first drug of choice, or non-choice, as it were, as it is foisted upon them by parents and teachers); as teens and adults, we line up for our java fixes at the ever-proliferating Starbucks cafés; and, of course, few of us can recreate or celebrate without imbibing alcohol. Even Mormon kids in Utah and Bible-carrying kids in the Deep South are not immune to America’s drug culture. The very notion of being “drug free” in America strikes most thinking teenagers as ludicrous. Second, adolescence itself is a time of great risk-taking. Teenagers often believe themselves invincible. How else could they learn to drive or surf or skateboard? Prevention messages that stress risk as a drug-use deterrent are barking up the wrong tree.

Still, after spending billions of government dollars on prevention, government surveys indicate that 80 percent of today’s teenagers will have consumed alcohol, and over half will have tried marijuana by the time they graduate from high school. Obviously, many teenagers have not heeded admonitions to be “drug free.” Is teenage drug use the fault of drug education programs such as D.A.R.E.? I doubt it. In the context of current American culture, prevention programs don’t stand a chance of preventing drug use.

From Coffee to Booze, Drugs Are Everywhere First, American teenagers (by definition) live in America and America is not

Finally, in our zeal to get teens to abstain, we have promoted anti-drug messages that misstate and exaggerate the dangers of (illegal) drugs so consistently that they have become nothing more than a joke to many teenagers. In short, young people have lost confidence in adults’ ability to say anything but “no” about the complex issue of drugs. Drug education may not be able to prevent drug use, but I do believe such programs could be useful in preventing drug abuse. While we’ve got teenagers’ attention, we could weave the subject of drugs into solid courses such as physiology, biology, chemistry, psychology, political science, history, etc. While we stress the value of abstinence, students could actually learn something about drugs that, now and later in life, might help them avoid problems (eg: the importance of dose and the dangers of combining drugs). And of course, we need to beef-up extracurricular and after-school programs so that teens have engaging activities dur-

ing the hours between the end of the school day and dinner. For those teenagers who still say “maybe” or “sometimes” or “yes” to drugs, we need a fall back strategy that embraces safety as its bottom line. A voluntary, drop-in informational program should be offered for at least an hour or two per week in every middle and high school in America. If teenagers won’t abstain completely, at least they can learn enough honest, sciencebased information about alcohol and other drugs to avoid serious problems.

Parents Are Worried and Confused Recently the government launched a campaign aimed at the parents of teenagers. On billboards and Web sites and in newspaper ads (www.theantidrug. org), parents are told that they have not only the responsibility but also the power to prevent drug use among teenagers. Since launching my own research into drug education, I’ve spoken with hundreds of parents about teens and drugs. I find that they, like me, are worried, confused, and in a bind. We baby boomers learned early on that authoritarian child-rearing, often complete with corporal punishment, was not okay. We negotiated with our kids, sometimes even as they behaved horribly. We eschewed violence and encouraged them to “use your words.” We tried to send our kids to schools that placed a premium on fostering creativity and bolstering self-esteem. We wanted our children to feel as though they had volition (even if they really didn’t). We gave them choices (even if sometimes those choices were bogus). And then came adolescence and “the drug thing.” All of a sudden volition, decision-making and creativity went out the window. The vast majority of us hoped for abstinent teenagers. We wanted to talk with our teenagers about drugs, but were terrified. Most of us didn’t know enough; some of us knew

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

27

too much. We wanted a sustained dialogue, but were told that we needed to impart a clear “no use” message and not budge from that position under any circumstances. Many parents wondered how they could sustain a dialogue and convince their kids they would be there for them if they first drew a line in the sand about drug use. How do I talk with my own children about drugs? The day before he entered high school in 1998, I published a letter to my son in the San Francisco Chronicle. This letter is included in Safety First and, as such, has been useful to thousands of parents in helping them and their teens through these difficult issues. I am republishing it here, in the hope that it might help some of you talk to your own children about drugs and drug use. Dear Johnny, This fall you will be entering high school, and like most American teenagers, you’ll have to navigate drugs. Like most parents, I would prefer that you not use drugs. However, I realize that, despite my wishes, you might experiment. I will not use scare tactics to deter you. Instead, having spent the past 25 years researching drug use, abuse and policy, I will tell you a little about what I have learned, hoping this will lead you to make wise choices. My only concern is your health and safety. When people talk about “drugs,” they are generally referring to illegal substances such as marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine (speed), psychedelic drugs (LSD, Ecstasy, “Schrooms”) and heroin. These are not the only drugs that make you high. Alcohol, cigarettes and many other substances (like glue) cause intoxication of some sort. The fact that one drug or another is illegal does not mean one is better or worse for you. All of them temporarily change the way you

28

THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

perceive things and the way you think. Some people will tell you that drugs feel good, and that’s why they use them. But drugs are not always fun. Cocaine and methamphetamine speed up your heart; LSD can make you feel disoriented; alcohol intoxication impairs driving; cigarette smoking leads to addiction and sometimes lung cancer; and people sometimes die suddenly from taking heroin. Marijuana does not often lead to physical dependence or overdose, but it does alter the way people think, behave and react. I have tried to give you a short description of the drugs you might encounter. I choose not to try to scare you by distorting information because I want you to have confidence in what I tell you. Although I won’t lie to you about their effects, there are many reasons for a person your age to not use drugs or alcohol. First, being high on marijuana or any other drug often interferes with normal life. It is difficult to retain information while high, so using it, especially daily, affects your ability to learn. Second, if you think you might try marijuana, please wait until you are older. Adults with drug problems often started using at a very early age. Finally, your father and I don’t want you to get into trouble. Drug and alcohol use is illegal for you, and the consequences of being caught are huge. Here in the United States, the number of arrests for possession of marijuana has more than doubled in the past six years. Adults are serious about “zero tolerance.” If caught, you could be arrested, expelled from school, barred from playing sports, lose your driver’s license, denied a college loan, and/or rejected for college. Despite my advice to abstain, you may one day choose to experiment. I

will say again that this is not a good idea, but if you do, I urge you to learn as much as you can, and use common sense. There are many excellent books and references, including the Internet, that give you credible information about drugs. You can, of course, always talk to me. If I don’t know the answers to your questions, I will try to help you find them. If you are offered drugs, be cautious. Watch how people behave, but understand that everyone responds differently even to the same substance. If you do decide to experiment, be sure that you are surrounded by people you can count upon. Plan your transportation and under no circumstances drive or get into a car with anyone else who has been using alcohol or other drugs. Call us or any of our close friends any time, day or night, and we will pick you up, no questions asked and no consequences. And please, Johnny, use moderation. It is impossible to know what is contained in illegal drugs because they are not regulated. The majority of fatal overdoses occur because young people do not know the strength of the drugs they consume, or how they combine with other drugs. Please do not participate in drinking contests, which have killed too many young people. Whereas marijuana by itself is not fatal, too much can cause you to become disoriented and sometimes paranoid. And of course, smoking can hurt your lungs, later in life and now. Johnny, as your father and I have always told you about a range of activities (including sex), think about the consequences of your actions before you act. Drugs are no different. Be skeptical and, most of all, be safe. Love, Mom

R

Article Endnotes …Are We Doing Enough? 1

For details, see page 186 of Richard Lawrence Miller’s Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State published in 1996 by Praeger Publishers of Westport, CT.

2

Ennett, S. T., Rosenbaum, D. P., Flewelling, R. L., Bieler, G. S., Ringwalt, C. R., & Bailey, S. L. (1994). Long-term evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Addictive Behaviors, 19(2), 113-125.

3

Clayton, R., Cattarello, A., & Johnstone, B. (1996). The effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project D.A.R.E.): 5-year follow-up results. Preventive Medicine, 25, 307-318.

4

Ringwalt, C., Ennett, S., and Holt, K. (1991). An outcome evaluation of Project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Health Education Research, 6(3), 327-337.

5

Harmon, M. A. (1993). Reducing the risk of drug involvement among early adolescents: An evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 17(2), 221-239.

6

Walker, S. G. (1990). The Victoria Police Department — Drug Abuse Resistance Education Programme (D.A.R.E.): Programme Evaluation Report #2. Victoria, Br. Columbia, Canada : Educon: Marketing & Research Systems. 7

Ennett, S., Tobler, N., Ringwalt, C., & Flewelling, R. (1994). How effective is drug abuse resistance education ? A meta-analysis of project DARE outcome evaluations. Journal of Public Health, 84(9), 1394-1401.

…Costs of D.A.R.E. 1

Helpful suggestions for this research were received from Paul Blackley and Cliff Donn of LeMoyne College, Nick Eyle and Alexandra Eyle of ReconsiDer, Mike Roona, Joel Brown, and Rodney Skager. D.A.R.E. officers and state coordinators in several states and staff of D.A.R.E. America provided valuable information used in this study. William Modzeleski and David Quinlin of the U.S. Department of Education, and Don MacKay of Common Sense for Drug Policy were also helpful in identifying information sources for this research. 2

Information about D.A.R.E. is from the D.A.R.E. America information packet entitled D.A.R.E. AtA-Glance, revised 08-25-99, and a D.A.R.E. Fact Sheet containing projections for 1999, prepared for the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. These reports were provided by D.A.R.E. America. 3

For example, see Project D.A.R.E.: No effects at 10-year follow-up, Lynam, Milich, et al., Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, August 1999, Vol. 67, No. 4, 590-93. The authors exam-

ine the existing long- term studies and find that “the preponderance of evidence suggests that D.A.R.E. has no long-term effect on drug use.” 4

Newspaper accounts have often reported costs closer to $200 million. These estimates appear to be based on D.A.R.E. America’s estimate for the value of officer services alone. 5

D.A.R.E. information reports provided by D.A.R.E.

America. 6

The U.S. Census, Census 2000, Table DP-1, shows that the total number of children in the 10–14 age group is about 20,500,000, which suggests that the number of school-age children in the 5th or 6th grade age group is probably close to 4 million. The Digest of Education Statistics, 1999, of the National Center for Education Statistics indicates that as of fall 1997 there were about 3.5 million in the 5th or 6th grade. The estimated number of 5th or 6th grade private school students is close to 500,000, bringing the total number, in 1997, to around 4 million. Enrollments increased by about 3 percent between 1997 and 2001, bringing the total to slightly over 4 million in the 5th or the 6th grades. Enrollments are expected to grow slightly over the next five years. D.A.R.E. programs are over-represented in urban and suburban areas (with larger school-age populations), and D.A.R.E. programs reportedly are in over 80 percent of school districts nationwide. Therefore, 4 million appears to be the maximum number of children that D.A.R.E. programs can be expected to reach, assuming information on program growth provided by D.A.R.E. America is accurate. For extensive information on schoolage populations and projections, see the Digest of Education Statistics at http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2000/digest99. 7

Information about D.A.R.E. training programs was provided by D.A.R.E. America and by staff at the regional training centers. 8

Information on funding sources for local D.A.R.E. programs is from a report by the Research Triangle Institute, Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review, Draft Final Report, September 1994, for the U.S. Department of Justice, and from numerous newspaper reports identified through a search of the Media Awareness Project on-line archives (mapinc.org). 9

Remarks of Barry R. McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, at the 13th Annual National D.A.R.E. Officers Association Dinner, July 7, 2000.

10

States apply for federal funds for D.A.R.E. programs through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Formula Grant Program. According to D.A.R.E. America, D.A.R.E. programs qualify for support because one of the authorized areas for funding is “demand reduction education programs in which law enforcement officers participate.” The Bush Administration, however, recently discontinued this program.

11

Conversations with officials in the U.S. Department of Education.

12 Research Triangle Institute, Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review, Draft Final Report, Sept. 1994. 13

The U.S. Department of Education adopted the “Principles of Effectiveness” that set standards governing the use of Department grants for drug education programs for 1998 and future years. Among other things, grant recipients are required to use the funds only for programs that have been found to be effective based on research and scientific evaluations. D.A.R.E. is not included among the programs found to be effective. For more information about the “Principles of Effectiveness”, see Reconsidering D.A.R.E., A Report for School Superintendents by Dr. Gene Tinelli at www.reconsider.org. 14 School-Based Drug Prevention Programs, A Longitudinal Study in Selected School Districts, Executive Summary, Final Report, page e-25, Research Triangle Institute, February 1997, prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. 15

Newspaper reports identified through a search of the Media Awareness Project on-line archives (mapinc.org).

16

Accounts of D.A.R.E. costs have been reported in U.S.A. Today, Reason Magazine, Rolling Stone, The National Review, and other publications.

17

Conversations with staff at D.A.R.E. America.

18

LeMoyne College Institute of Industrial Relations Research Paper, No.22, September 2001, The Economic Costs of D.A.R.E. For a copy of the complete report, visit www.reconsider.org, or e-mail the author at [email protected].

19

Occupational Employment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Protective Service Occupations, SOC Code 33-3051, Police and Sheriffs Patrol Officers. The estimated mean annual estimated wages for 1999 was about $39,000. Therefore $40,000 is a reasonable estimate for 2001.

20

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Cost Trends, Table 4, State and Local Government, by occupational and industry group, March 2000.

21

LeMoyne College Institute of Industrial Relations Research Paper, No.22, September 2001, The Economic Costs of D.A.R.E.

22

D.A.R.E. America reports that approximately 3000 D.A.R.E. officers are trained each year.

23

Conversation with staff at D.A.R.E. America.

24

Information from tax returns for D.A.R.E. and other tax-exempt organizations is available at Guidestar.org. The 1998 tax returns are the most recent currently available.

(Continued on back cover) THE

RECONSIDER QUARTERLY

29

Endnotes (Continued from page 29) 25 US Anti-drug Program Says It Will Adopt a New Strategy, The New York Times, Feb. 15, 2001. 26

Research Triangle Institute, Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review. Draft Final Report, Sept. 1994. 27

Conversations with local D.A.R.E. coordinators and officers in New York City and other communities in Maryland and upstate New York.

28

Conversations with licensed D.A.R.E. vendors.

29

Information from tax returns for D.A.R.E. and other tax-exempt organizations is available at Guidestar.org. The 1998 tax returns are the most recent currently available. 30

Newspaper reports identified through the Media Awareness Project and conversations with D.A.R.E. officers and coordinators. 31

Newspaper reports identified through the Media Awareness Project and conversations with D.A.R.E. officers and coordinators. 32

Ibid. Table 70 states that the average class size for elementary school teachers is 24.

33

The D.A.R.E. elementary school program consists of 17 one-hour lessons, including the graduation ceremony. The D.A.R.E. officer meets with the classroom instructor before classes begin, and

the regular classroom instructor often spends time during and after the D.A.R.E. program to reinforce the lessons. Thus 18 hours is probably a reasonable estimate of the amount of class hours for the D.A.R.E. program.

5

…Especially for Adolescents

6

1

Shepard, T. (2001). The economic costs of

D.A.R.E.. LeMoyne Institute of Industrial Rela-

tions. Syracuse, New York. Paper Number 22. 2

Johnson, L. D., O’Malley, P.M.., & Bachman, J. G. (2001). Monitoring the Future. National results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2000. University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.

3 Austin, G. and Shager, R. (1999). Seventh Biennial Statewide Survey of Drug and Alcohol Use Among California Students in Grades 7, 9, and 11. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Attorney General, Crime Prevention Center. 4

Golub, A. W. (2001) & Johnson, B. D. (2001). Variation in youthful risks of progression from alcohol/tobacco to marijuana and to hard drugs across generations. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 225-232.

4

Moshman, David. (1999). Adolescent Psychological Development: Rationality, Morality, and Identity. New Jersey: Erlbaum & Associates.

Schaps, E., Moskowitz, Malvin, J., & Schaeffer, B. (1986). Evaluation of seven school-based prevention programs: A final report on the Napa project. International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 1081-1112. Gorman, D. (1996). Etiological theories and the primary prevention of drug use. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(2), 505-520.

7

Coggans, N., & McKellar, S. (1994). Drug Use Amongst Peers: Peer Pressure or Peer Preference? Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy. 1(1), 1526.

8 Hersch, P. (1998). A Tribe Apart: A Journey into the Heart of American Adolescence. New York: Fawcett-Columbine. 9

I am indebted to my colleague, Ralph Cantor, a truly wise prevention practitioner, for his formulation of these principles.

10

Brown, D. H., D’Emidio-Caston, M., and Pollard, J. (1997). Students and substances: Social power in drug education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 65-82.

…Notes on Drug Education 1

The author is grateful to Dr. Marsha Rosenbaum for this phrase.

R

Visit www.reconsider.org to receive ReconsiDer Tidbits and for more about the Drug Wars.

RECONSIDER: FORUM ON DRUG POLICY

205 Onondaga Avenue Syracuse, NY 13207

The War on Drugs has

failed. We must make peace, heal our wounds and change our laws.